title: Actions brought on 18 August 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the French Republic (Cases C-319/98, C-320/98 and C-321/98)

text:
26.9.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 299/29
Action brought on 5 August 1998 by the Commission of               The applicant claims that the Court should:
         the European Communities against Ireland
                       (Case C-308/98)                             1. declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                       period the laws, regulations and administrative
                        (98/C 299/44)                                  provisions necessary to comply with European
                                                                       Parliament and Council Directive 94/47/EC of
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of              26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in
Justice of the European Communities on 5 August 1998                   respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the
by the Commission of the European Communities,                         purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a
represented by Götz zur Hausen, its legal adviser, and                 timeshare basis (1), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to
Michael Shotter, a national official seconded to the                   fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
Commission under an arrangement for the exchange of
officials, acting as agents, with an address for service in        2. order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a
member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Centre              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Wagner.
                                                                   The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
                                                                   Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to
                                                                   adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives
Ð declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations           addressed to them into their domestic law before the
    or administrative provisions necessary to comply with          expiry of the period prescribed for doing so and forthwith
    Council Directive 94/69/EC of 19 December 1994                 to inform the Commission thereof. That period, which is
    adapting to technical progress for the twenty-first time       laid down in Article 12 of Directive 94/47/EC, expired on
    Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation              29 April 1997 without Spain having brought into force
    of laws, regulations and administrative provisions             the necessary provisions.
    relating to the classification, packaging and labelling
    of dangerous substances (1), and/or by failing to inform
                                                                   (1) OJ L 280, 29.10.1994, p. 83.
    the Commission thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil its
    obligations under that Directive, and
Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Actions brought on 18 August 1998 by the Commission of
                                                                   the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                   Belgium, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the French
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
                                                                                Republic
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, on each
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the                   (Cases C-319/98, C-320/98 and C-321/98)
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid                                     (98/C 299/46)
down in the Directive. That period expired on 1 September
1996 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
necessary to comply with the Directive referred to in the          Three actions against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case
conclusions of the Commission.                                     C-319/98), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (C-320/98)
                                                                   and the French Republic (Case C-321/98) respectively
(1) OJ L 381, 31.12.1994, p. 1.                                    were brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                   Communities on 18 August 1998 by the Commission of
                                                                   the European Communities, represented by Pieter van
                                                                   Nuffel, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                   Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                   Kirchberg.
Action brought on 11 August 1998 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                       (Case C-311/98)
                        (98/C 299/45)                              Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                       prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                       administrative provisions necessary to comply with
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought                     European Parliament and Council Directive 94/47/EC
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                of 26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in
on 11 August 1998 by the Commission of the European                    respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the
Communities, represented by Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of                purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a
its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for                timeshare basis (1), and, in any event, by failing
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la              to notify the abovementioned provisions to the
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                  Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Grand
 ---pagebreak--- C 299/30               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  26.9.98
    Duchy of Luxembourg and the French Republic have                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    failed to fulfil their obligations under that Directive;
                                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
                                                                     those put forward in Case C-311/98 (2).
Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium, the Grand Duchy of
    Luxembourg and the French Republic respectively to               (1) OJ L 280, 29.10.1994, p. 83.
    pay the costs.                                                   (2) See page 29 of this Official Journal.
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 14 July 1998                                         (Third Chamber, extended composition)
in Case T-119/95: Alfred Hauer v. Council of the
European Union and Commission of the European                                                 of 16 July 1998
                        Communities (1)
                                                                     in   Case    T-109/96:      Gilberte Gebhard   v. European
(Action for annulment Ð Regulation (EEC) No 816/92 Ð                                           Parliament (1)
Time limit for bringing proceedings Ð Admissibility Ð
Action for damages Ð Common organisation of the                      (Officials Ð Auxiliary staff Ð Auxiliary session
market in milk and milk products Ð Reference quantities              interpreters of the European Parliament Ð Legality of
Ð Additional levy Ð Reduction of reference quantities                       levying Community tax on their remuneration)
                     without compensation)
                                                                                (98/C 299/48)
                          (98/C 299/47)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-119/95: Alfred Hauer, residing in Niederweiler
(Germany), represented by FrancËois, Neuhaus & Co., with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     In Case T-109/96: Gilberte Gebhard, conference
Annick Wurth, 100 Boulevard de la PeÂtrusse v. the
                                                                     interpreter, residing in Heidelberg (Germany), represented
Council of the European Union (Agent: Arthur Brautigam)
                                                                     by Thierry Schmitt and Pierre Soler-Couteaux, of the
and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                     Strasbourg Bar, against European Parliament (Agents:
(Agent: Klaus-Dieter Borchardt) Ð application for
                                                                     Manfred Peter, Didier Petersheim and JoaÄo Sant'Anna) Ð
annulment of Council Regulation (EEC) No 816/92 of
                                                                     application for reimbursement of Community tax levied
31 March 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 804/68
                                                                     on two payments of remuneration to the applicant Ð the
on the common organisation of the market in milk and
                                                                     Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, extended
milk products (2) and for compensation for the damage
                                                                     composition), composed of: V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt,
suffered as a result of the application of that Regulation
                                                                     K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair,
Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
                                                                     Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
President, C. W. Bellamy and R. M. Moura Ramos,
                                                                     16 July 1998, in which it:
Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 14 July 1998, in which it:
1. dismisses the claim for annulment as inadmissible;                1. dismisses the application;
2. dismisses the claim for compensation as unfounded;
                                                                     2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
3. orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
(1) OJ C 208, 12.8.1995.
(2) OJ L 86, 1.4.1992, p. 83.


title: Case C-213/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Fiscal Aduaneiro do Porto by order of that court of 11 May 1999, in the case of José Teodoro de Andrade and the Director da Alfândega de Leixões

text:
C 226/22                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.8.1999
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Question 2
— Declare that, in view of the administrative and contractual              In so far as the national administrative customs procedure
     practice established by various public universities, which            provides, as the only measure (applied automatically, as
     entails a failure to respect the vested rights of former              indicated above) to be taken by the national customs auth-
     university language assistants who are not of Italian mother          orities, for recourse to the overdue-clearance procedure, the
     tongue, whereas such recognition is guaranteed for the                sole object of which is to ensure sale of the goods, may it not
     majority of other national workers, the Italian Republic              be regarded as a disproportionate measure infringing taxpayers’
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 (ex Article     rights of defence and classifiable as an obstacle to the
     48) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;                free movement of goods, particularly since, being applied
                                                                           automatically, that measure may take effect forthwith, that is
— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                             to say on the first day following the end of the statutory
                                                                           storage period, without the importer of the goods even being
                                                                           warned or advised?
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Question 3
It appears from the information provided by the Italian
authorities that the infringement of Article 48 of the EC Treaty           By immediately putting up the goods for ‘sale’ in the circum-
(now, after amendment, Article 39 EC), which the Commission                stances described above, does the national customs adminis-
described in detail in its letter under Article 169 (now Article           trative procedure infringe Article 6(3) of the Community
226) of 9 Jul, 1998 and in its reasoned opinion of 28 January              Customs Code?
1999, has not been cured.
In the case of six of the nine universities listed in the above            Question 4
letter and opinion, the Italian Government has failed to provide
the Commission with adequate documentary evidence to show                  Does the national customs administrative procedure, by not
that, for financial and social security purposes, the seniority            making any notification compulsory in the overdue-clearance
acquired by university foreign language assistants before the              procedure, as provided for in Article 638 et seq. of the Customs
entry into force of Law No 236/1995 has been recognised.                   Regulations, infringe Article 243 of the Community Customs
                                                                           Code?
                                                                           Question 5
                                                                           In the event that the overdue-clearance charge provided for in
                                                                           Article 638 et seq. of the Customs Regulations falls to be
                                                                           classified as a procedural administrative penalty (the view
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Fiscal                  taken in the national case-law), is that charge subject to VAT?
Aduaneiro do Porto by order of that court of 11 May
1999, in the case of José Teodoro de Andrade and the
               Director da Alfândega de Leixões                           Question 6
                            (Case C-213/99)                                If the hypothesis outlined in the Question 5 (that the charge
                                                                           constitutes an administrative penalty) is accepted, may the fact
                                                                           that that charge is levied on an ad valorem (objective) basis, but
                            (1999/C 226/36)                                without any reference to fault on the part of the agent or to
                                                                           charges actually borne by the customs authorities in respect of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     measures relating to precautionary supervision, warehousing
European Communities by an order of the Tribunal Fiscal                    and other matters, be regarded as constituting an infringement
Aduaneiro do Porto (Customs Court, Oporto) of 11 May 1999,                 of the principle of proportionality?
which was received at the Court Registry on 4 June 1999, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of José Teodoro de Andrade
                                                                           Question 7
and the Director da Alfândega de Leixões, on the following
questions:
                                                                           If it were accepted, on the contrary, that the said charge is not
                                                                           in the nature of a penalty but in fact represents remuneration
                                                                           for services provided by the customs authorities, would the
Question 1                                                                 levying of VAT be justified?
Is the national administrative customs procedure, in so far as
                                                                           (1) Council Regulation (EEC No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
it means that, automatically and without prior notice, goods                    establishing the Community Customs Code, OJ L 302 of
remaining uncleared beyond the statutory periods are to be                      19.10.1992, p. 1.
subject to the overdue-clearance procedure (sale), compatible
with Article 53 of the Customs Code (1), in particular Article
53(1)?


title: Case C-249/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Fundação Eugénio de Almeida (Appeal — Community trade mark — Community figurative mark QTA S. JOSÉ DE PERAMANCA — Application for registration — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national figurative marks VINHO PÊRAMANCA TINTO, VINHO PÊRAMANCA BRANCO and PÊRAMANCA — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/13

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Fundação Eugénio de Almeida
   (Case C-249/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Community figurative mark QTA S. JOSÉ DE PERAMANCA - Application for registration - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national figurative marks VINHO PÊRAMANCA TINTO, VINHO PÊRAMANCA BRANCO and PÊRAMANCA - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion))
   (2015/C 294/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal Lda (represented by J. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda de Sousa, advogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), Fundação Eugénio de Almeida (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz and J.M. Pimenta, advogados)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal Lda to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


title: Case T-337/11: Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — Italiana Calzature v OHIM — Vicini (Giuseppe BY GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Giuseppe BY GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI — Prior Community word mark ZANOTTI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — Italiana Calzature v OHIM — Vicini (Giuseppe BY GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI)
   (Case T-337/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Giuseppe BY GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI - Prior Community word mark ZANOTTI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 147/30
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Societá Italiana Calzature SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Rapisardi and C. Ginevra, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vicini SpA (San Mauro Pascoli, Italy) (represented by: M. Franzosi and M. Giorgetti, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 918/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Societá Italiana Calzature SpA and Vicini SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Societá Italiana Calzature SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case T-535/10: Action brought on 22 November 2010 — Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHIM — Garmo (GAZI Hellim)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/45

         Action brought on 22 November 2010 — Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHIM — Garmo (GAZI Hellim)
   (Case T-535/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/82
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias (Lefkosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Milbradt and H. Van Volxem, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Garmo AG (Stuttgart, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 September 2010 in Case R 1497/2009-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Garmo AG

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘GAZI Hellim’ for goods in Class 29

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the collective word mark ‘HALLOUMI’ for goods in Class 29

      Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), as the marks and goods at issue are similar and there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-33/15: Action brought on 26 January 2015  — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (BIMBO)

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/37

         Action brought on 26 January 2015 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (BIMBO)
   (Case T-33/15)
   (2015/C 089/45)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community work mark ‘BIMBO’ — Application for registration No 11 616 414

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2014 in Case R 251/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision, declaring in its judgment the sufficient distinctiveness, whether inherent or acquired by use, of the mark applied for, upholding the present action and ordering the registration of Community trade mark application No 11 616 414 ‘BIMBO’ in Class 30 of the International Classification; and

               —

               order the party opposing that claim to pay the costs of the proceedings and to reimburse the appeal fees paid to OHIM.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c), (2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-624/11 P: Order of the Court of 27 September 2012 — Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Felmar (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulations (EC) No 40/94 and (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(4) — Community word mark BRIGHTON — Opposition proceedings — Interpretation of the provisions of national law on relative grounds for refusal of registration)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/4

         Order of the Court of 27 September 2012 — Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Felmar
   (Case C-624/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulations (EC) No 40/94 and (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(4) - Community word mark BRIGHTON - Opposition proceedings - Interpretation of the provisions of national law on relative grounds for refusal of registration)
   2013/C 101/08
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Brighton Collectibles, Inc. (represented by: J. Horn, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Felmar (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Felmar (represented by: D. Monégier du Sorbier, avocat)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 September 2011 in Case T-403/10 Brighton Collectibles v OHIM — Felmar, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2010 (Case R 408/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Brighton Collectibles, Inc. and Felmar — Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Community word mark BRIGHTON — Opposition proceedings based on earlier national word and figurative marks — Failure to give sufficient reasons with regard to the national laws relied upon

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Brighton Collectibles, Inc. shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.


title: Case T-761/15: Action brought on 23 December 2015 — Sogepa v Commission

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/43

         Action brought on 23 December 2015 — Sogepa v Commission
   (Case T-761/15)
   (2016/C 068/54)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Société wallonne de gestion et de participations (Sogepa) (Liège, Belgium) (represented by: A. Lepièce and H. Baeyens, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the European Commission decision of 31 July 2014 on non-notified State aid SA.34791 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) — Belgium — Rescue aid for Val Saint-Lambert SA in that it orders the recovery of an amount of aid corresponding to double the economic advantage which actually benefitted the company Val Saint-Lambert;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging the error of law which the Commission made when categorising the economic advantage in the context of the grant of the loan to Val Saint-Lambert SA and to the imposition of a double reimbursement of the economic advantage to the beneficiary.


title: Case F-13/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 19 March 2013 — BR v Commission (Civil service — Member of the temporary service — Non-renewal of a contract)

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/33

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 19 March 2013 — BR v Commission
   (Case F-13/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Member of the temporary service - Non-renewal of a contract)
   2013/C 147/62
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: BR (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Civil service — Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the contract staff.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that BR must bear her own costs and orders her to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012, p. 32.


title: Case T-183/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Schmiedag v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate — Action for annulment — Application to amend the form of order sought — No new information — Inadmissibility)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/57

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Schmiedag v Commission
   (Case T-183/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate - Action for annulment - Application to amend the form of order sought - No new information - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 294/68)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Schmiedag GmbH (Hagen, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: initially X. Lewis, M. Schneider and C. Howdle, then X. Lewis, M. Schneider, M. Moustakali and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

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

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The application seeking that the form of order sought in the present action be amended to cover Commission decision C (2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 relating to State Aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible.

               3.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG.

               4.

               Schmiedag GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

               5.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case C-450/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special scheme for travel agents — Discrepancies between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers — Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘customer’ )

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-450/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Discrepancies between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘customer’)
   2013/C 344/17
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso and L. Lozano Palacios, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and R. Laires, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation providing for the application of the special travel agency taxation scheme to transactions that travel agencies make in favour of recipients other than travellers

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Portuguese Republic;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011.


title: Case T-209/17: Action brought on 4 April 2017 — ZGS v EUIPO (Schülerhilfe1)

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/32

         Action brought on 4 April 2017 — ZGS v EUIPO (Schülerhilfe1)
   (Case T-209/17)
   (2017/C 168/42)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZGS Bildungs-GmbH (Gelsenkirchen, Germany) (represented by: T. Remmerbach, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Schülerhilfe1’ — Application No 15 113 038

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 in Case R 1789/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by ZGS Bildungs-GmbH.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-134/07: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Jaworznie (Republic of Poland)) — Piotr Kawala v Gmina Miasta Jaworzna (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Higher national levy for a product imported from another Member State than for a similar product purchased in the relevant Member State — First paragraph of Article 90 EC — Charge on first registration affecting imported second-hand motor vehicles)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/15

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Jaworznie (Republic of Poland)) — Piotr Kawala v Gmina Miasta Jaworzna
   (Case C-134/07) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Higher national levy for a product imported from another Member State than for a similar product purchased in the relevant Member State - First paragraph of Article 90 EC - Charge on first registration affecting imported second-hand motor vehicles)
   (2008/C 64/22)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Referring court
   Sąd Rejonowy w Jaworznie
   Partie to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Piotr Kawala

      Defendant: Gmina Miasta Jaworzna
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Rejonowy w Jaworznie — Interpretation of Article 90 EC — Charge levied for the issue of a vehicle registration certificate at the time of the vehicle's first registration in the Member State, the amount of which is significantly greater than that charged for obtaining a duplicate copy of a vehicle registration certificate — Principle of neutrality of domestic charges in light of competition between goods already on the national market and imported goods
   Operative part of the order
   The first paragraph of Article 90 EC must be interpreted as precluding a charge, such as that provided for in Paragraph 1(1) of the Regulation of the Polish Minister for Infrastructure of 28 July 2003, on the amount of the charge for a vehicle registration certificate which, in practice, is levied on the first registration of a second-hand motor vehicle imported from another Member State and not levied on the purchase of a second-hand vehicle in Poland in so far as the latter is already registered there.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-180/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court of Appeal, Thessaloniki (Greece) lodged on 28 April 2008 — Maria Kastrinaki v A.KH.E.P.A. University Hospital, Thessaloniki

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court of Appeal, Thessaloniki (Greece) lodged on 28 April 2008 — Maria Kastrinaki v A.KH.E.P.A. University Hospital, Thessaloniki
   (Case C-180/08)
   (2008/C 171/38)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Administrative Court of Appeal, Thessaloniki
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maria Kastrinaki

      Defendant: A.KH.E.P.A. University Hospital, Thessaloniki
   Questions referred

               1.

               Where nationals of a Member State, relying upon evidence of a qualification that they believe comes within the scope of Directive 89/48/ΕEC, have been recruited by a legal person governed by public law and exercise a regulated profession in the host Member State under a contract of employment of unlimited duration governed by private law, having progressed in terms of their career and salary in keeping with the qualification in question, is it subsequently open to the competent authorities, for the purpose of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the said directive, interpreted in the light of Articles 149 and 150 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to prevent such persons from exercising their professional rights because they are unable to recognise the academic equivalence of the qualification relied on for the purpose of classification in the job category and salary grade corresponding to the qualification, purely on the ground that, although it was awarded by an authority in the Member State of origin, it was awarded at the end of a course of which part was completed, under a franchising agreement, at an institution in the host Member State which, although operating freely in the host Member State, is not recognised as an educational establishment in that State under the relevant general provision of its legislation?

               2.

               Is it open to the competent authorities, for the purposes of the provisions of Directive 89/48/ΕEC, as transposed into Greek law by Joint Ministerial Decision No Α4/4112/247/1992, interpreted in the light of Article 39(1), the first paragraph of Article 40, Articles 43, 47(1), 49 and 55 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to prevent nationals of a Member State employed by a legal person governed by public law, under a contract of employment of unlimited duration governed by private law, who have been granted a professional licence in accordance with the provisions of Directive 89/48/ΕEC, as transposed into Greek law by Joint Ministerial Decision No Α4/4112/247/1992, from exercising professional rights which derive from the professional licence issued, on the ground that the academic equivalence of their educational qualification has not been recognised?


title: Case T-648/11: Action brought on 21 December 2011 — Smart Technologies/OHMI (SMART NOTEBOOK)

text:
               25.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/11

         Action brought on 21 December 2011 — Smart Technologies/OHMI (SMART NOTEBOOK)
   (Case T-648/11)
   2012/C 58/21
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Smart Technologies ULC (Calgary, Canada) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC, T. Elias, Barrister, and R. Harrison, Solicitor)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 September 2011 in case R 942/2011-1;

               —

               In the alternative, alter the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal to state that the application possesses sufficient distinctive character that no objection to its registration may be raised under Articles 7(1)(b) or (c) of the Regulation; and

               —

               Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SMART NOTEBOOK’ for goods in class 9 — Community trade mark application No 9049313

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the Community trade mark application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that the Community trade mark application was devoid of any distinctive character. Further, the applicant submits that the application is not descriptive of the applicant’s goods, rather it has a distinctive character that enables the application to function as an indication of trade origin for the goods in question. In particular the applicant submits that the Board: (a) applied the wrong test when considering whether or not a mark was descriptive of the goods for which registration was sought; (b) failed to consider the fact that the applicant had a family of ‘Smart’ marks, and wrongly confused this issue with the concept of acquired distinctiveness under Article 7(3) of the Regulation; and (c) wrongly dismissed the submission relating to legitimate expectation in the circumstances where the other marks upon which reliance was placed were all owned by the applicant, as opposed to marks owned by third parties.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 24 July 1998 in the case of Bärbel Kachelmann against Bankhaus Hermann Lampe KG (Case C-322/98)

text:
10.10.98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 312/7
lijk Middenstandsverbond (NCMV), Koninklijke Vereni-                    ETUC have sufficient collective representativity, they
ging MKB-Nederland, FeÂdeÂration des Artisans, Confedera-               Ð to the exclusion of all other associations Ð will
zione Generale Italiana del Artigianato (Confartigianato),              always have the right to negotiate the framework
Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, Bundesvereinigung der                     agreements implemented by Community legislative
Fachverbände des Deutschen Handwerks eV (BFH), and                      instrument pursuant to Article 4(2), first paragraph, of
the Council of the European Union, supported by the                     the Agreement on social policy. Such a system is also
Commission of the European Communities, was brought                     in breach of the freedom of association of national
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 associations and their members. Thus, if the
on 14 August 1998 by the Union EuropeÂenne de l'Artisa-                 associations which are members of UEAPME Ð or
nat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises (UEAPME),                    rather the SMUs which belong to members of
represented by Francis Herbert and Daniel Tomasevic, of                 UEAPME Ð wish one day to be involved in the
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                        negotiation of European framework agreements, they
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia Manhaeve, 56Ð58                     will be compelled to join UNICE so that the latter can
Rue Charles Martel.                                                     represent them,
The appellant claims that the Court should:                         Ð infringement of the procedural rules relating to the
                                                                        rights of the defence and the equality of arms in
                                                                        judicial proceedings: in the absence of any relevant
Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of              evidence, the Court of First Instance cannot call in
    the European Communities of 17 June 1998 in Case                    question the fact that the applicant represents
    T-135/96 between the same parties,                                  undertakings with employees, while denying the
                                                                        applicant an opportunity to address that question
                                                                        (sufficient time being allowed for it to substantiate its
Ð annul Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on
                                                                        reply). The approach of the Court of First Instance is
    the framework agreement on parental leave concluded
                                                                        all the more improper in view of the fact that it clearly
    by UNICE, CEEP and ETUC (1) in its entirety, or, in
                                                                        suggested in its questions at the end of the written
    the alternative, with respect solely to its application to
                                                                        procedure that the point at issue was the number of
    SMUs,
                                                                        undertakings represented, not the number of persons
                                                                        employed by those undertakings,
Ð order the Commission to pay all costs, including those
    incurred in the proceedings before the Court of First
    Instance.                                                       Ð breach of the obligation to state reasons.
                                                                    (1) OJ L 145, 19.6.1996, p. 4.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð Infringement of Article 2(2) of the Agreement on
    social policy concluded between the Member States of
    the European Community with the exception of the
    United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeits-
    Ireland, annexed to Protocol 14 on social policy,
                                                                    gericht Hamburg by order of that court of 24 July 1998
    annexed to the Treaty establishing the European
                                                                    in the case of Bärbel Kachelmann against Bankhaus
    Community: the Court of First Instance erroneously
                                                                                Hermann Lampe KG
    assessed the scope of Article 2(2) which, with a view
    to ensuring compliance with the clear and                                              (Case C-322/98)
    unconditional prohibition laid down therein, calls for
                                                                                (98/C 312/13)
    the participation of an association which is genuinely
    representative of SMUs and authorised by them to
    present their case. Respect for their prerogatives can
    only be ensured by direct recognition of the                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    association representing SMUs as having a right of              European Communities by order of the Sixth Chamber of
    action for annulment. The Court of Justice cannot, by           the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg (Higher Labour Court,
    means of a preliminary ruling Ð in so far as a                  Hamburg) of 24 July 1998, received at the Court Registry
    reference for such a ruling implies that a national             on 20 August 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
    court is confronted with a conflict between legal rules         Bärbel Kachelmann against Bankhaus Hermann Lampe
    after the Directive's transposition Ð express judicial          KG on the following question:
    condemnation of the unlawful situation until after it
    has been created,
                                                                    Is Article 5(1) of Directive 76/207/EEC (1) to be interpreted
                                                                    as meaning that, when applying paragraph 1(3) of the
Ð infringement of Article 4 of the Agreement on social              Kündigungsschutzgesetz (Law on Employment Protection)
    policy: the Court of First Instance misinterpreted the          Ð in this case in the version in force until 30 September
    meaning of management and labour'. It reasons that,            1996 Ð part-time female employees are to be regarded as
    provided it is established that UNICE, CEEP and                 comparable with male/female full-time employees in the
 ---pagebreak--- C 312/8               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                10.10.98
context of the selection of employees for dismissal on                     Removal from the register of Case C-359/96 (1)
social criteria if substantially more women than men are                                     (98/C 312/15)
employed part-time in a sector?
(1) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.                                       By order of 28 May 1998 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                     removal from the register of Case C-359/96 (reference for
                                                                     a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                     Pavia): Criminal proceedings against Luigi Bazzan,
                                                                     Agostino Traverso and Adriano Calvini.
Action brought on 1 September 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic              (1) OJ C 9, 11.1.1997.
                       (Case C-326/98)
                         (98/C 312/14)
An action against the French Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                        Removal from the register of Case C-335/96 (1)
1 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                                              (98/C 312/16)
Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Court-Castera, a
national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                     By order of 9 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                 Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                            removal from the register of Case C-335/96: Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     (1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
Ð declare that, by requiring the words cotisation seÂcuriteÂ
     sociale' (social security levy') to appear on the
     labelling of alcoholic beverages from other Member
     States, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under Article 30 of the Treaty,
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-318/97 (1)
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.                                                (98/C 312/17)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     By order of 15 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Under French law, a contribution to the national sickness            Justice of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) has
insurance fund is levied on alcoholic beverages having an            ordered the removal from the register of Case C-318/97:
alcohol content in excess of 25 % by volume. The                     Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of
contribution is paid by wholesalers and by producers                 Spain.
selling such beverages direct to retailers or consumers, and
the words cotisation seÂcuriteÂ sociale' must appear in the         (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
form of a circle on the labelling of those beverages.
As regards products coming from other Member States,
the labelling obligation referred to above, failure to
comply with which may lead to a criminal prosecution,
constitutes a restriction on the free movement of goods                    Removal from the register of Case C-398/97 (1)
and thus falls, as a measure having equivalent effect,
within the scope of Article 30 of the Treaty.                                                (98/C 312/18)
A labelling obligation intended to inform consumers by
                                                                     By order of 17 June 1998 the President of the Court of
pointing out the risks of alcohol abuse and the total cost
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
borne by the social security system may be regarded as
                                                                     removal from the register of Case C-398/97: Commission
legitimate, provided however that the measure in question
                                                                     of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
is appropriate to the achievement of that objective. In the
Commission's view, that criterion is not fulfilled by the
words cotisation seÂcuriteÂ sociale'.                               (1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.


title: Joined Cases T-170/10 and T-340/10: Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2011 — CTG Luxembourg PSF v Court of Justice (Public service contracts — Procurement procedure — Provision of support services to IT systems users — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid because it was lodged out of time — Award of contract to another tenderer — Action for annulment — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/13

         Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2011 — CTG Luxembourg PSF v Court of Justice
   (Joined Cases T-170/10 and T-340/10) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Procurement procedure - Provision of support services to IT systems users - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid because it was lodged out of time - Award of contract to another tenderer - Action for annulment - Non-contractual liability)
   2012/C 6/21
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Computer Task Group Luxembourg PSF SA (CTG Luxembourg PSF) (Bertrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Thewes and B. Marthoz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A. Placco, Agent)

      Re:

   Applications (i) for annulment, first, of decision of the Court of Justice of 9 February 2010 to reject the tender submitted by the consortium of which the applicant is a member in the context of procurement procedure reference AO 008/2009 entitled ‘1st and 2nd level support for the users of IT and telephone systems, call centre, end user hardware management’ and, secondly, of the decision of 5 March 2010 confirming the rejection and, thirdly, the decision to award the contract to another tenderer, and (ii) for compensation for the loss allegedly incurred by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the applications;

               2.

               Orders Computer Task Group Luxembourg PSF SA (CTG Luxembourg PSF) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 9 June 2004 in Case T-91/04 R: Alexander Just v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim measures — Competition procedure — Suspension of enforcement — Admissibility)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/24

      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 9 June 2004
   in Case T-91/04 R: Alexander Just v Commission of the European Communities
   (Proceedings for interim measures - Competition procedure - Suspension of enforcement - Admissibility)
   (2004/C 239/53)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-91/04 R: Alexander Just, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by G. Lebitsch, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: H. Krämer, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for the suspension of competition COM/A/2/02 to constitute a reserve of assistant administrators (A8) in the field of ‘Environment’, or alternatively for the suspension of the validity of the reserve list of candidates in that competition — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on 9 June 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 September 2000 in Case C-46/98 P: European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association (EFMA) v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Anti-dumping — Ineffective pleas — Right to a fair hearing)

text:
4.11.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 316/13
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                                             (Sixth Chamber)
                      of 21 September 2000                                                        of 21 September 2000
                                                                          in Case C-109/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-46/98 P: European Fertilizer Manufacturers
                                                                          the Tribunal Administratif de Pau): Association Basco-
Association (EFMA) v Council of the European Union and
                                                                          Béarnaise des Opticiens Indépendants v Préfet des Pyréné-
        Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                es-Atlantiques (1)
(Appeal — Anti-dumping — Ineffective pleas — Right to a                   (Directives 73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC — Objects of
                            fair hearing)                                 insurance undertakings limited to the business of insurance
                                                                          and operations arising directly therefrom, to the exclusion of
                                                                                all other commercial business)
                         (2000/C 316/23)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/24)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case C-46/98 P: European Fertilizer Manufacturers Associ-
ation (EFMA), established in Zürich, Switzerland, represented
by D. Voillemot and O. Prost, of the Paris Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Rue Goethe — appeal against the judgment of the Court of                                       in the European Court Reports)
First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber,
Extended Composition) of 17 December 1997 in Case
T-121/95 EFMA v Council [1997] ECR II-2391, seeking to                    In Case C-109/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
have that judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceed-           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal
ings being: Council of the European Union (Agent: S. Mar-                 Administratif de Pau, France, for a preliminary ruling in the
quardt, assisted by H.-J. Rabe and G.M. Berrisch) and Com-                proceedings pending before that court between Association
mission of the European Communities (Agent: N. Khan) — the                Basco-Béarnaise des Opticiens Indépendants and Préfet des
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President               Pyrénées-Atlantiques, supported by Mutuelle ‘Adour Mutualité’
of the Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth              and Mutualité Française — Union des Pyrénées-Atlantiques —
Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),                    on the interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of First Council Direc-
Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Adminis-             tive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws,
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 September           regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
2000, in which it:                                                        taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other
                                                                          than life assurance (OJ 1973 L 228, p. 3), as amended by
                                                                          Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordi-
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                               nation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                          relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and
                                                                          amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-
2.    Orders European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association (EFMA)         life insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1) — the Court
      to pay the costs;                                                   (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida
                                                                          (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and
                                                                          J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear           General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
      its own costs.                                                      a judgment on 21 September 2000, in which it has ruled:
                                                                          1.     Article 8(1)(b) of First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of
                                                                                24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.                                                        administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit
                                                                                of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance, as
                                                                                amended by Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992
                                                                                on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                                provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance
                                                                                and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC


title: Case T-209/06 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 October 2006 — European Association of Im — and Exporters of Birds and live Animals and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Application for interim measures — Application for interim measures and suspension of enforcement — Admissibility — Urgency — None)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/59

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 October 2006 — European Association of Im — and Exporters of Birds and live Animals and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-209/06 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Application for interim measures and suspension of enforcement - Admissibility - Urgency - None)
   (2006/C 326/127)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicants: European Association of Im — and Exporters of Birds and live Animals (West Maas en Waal, Netherlands), Vereniging van Im- en Exporteurs van Vogels en Hobbydieren (West Maas en Waal), Plomps Vogelhandel (Woerden, Netherlands) and Borgstein Birds & Zoofood Trading (West Maas en Waal) (represented by: J. Wouters, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Erlbacher and M. van Heezik, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for, first, suspension of enforcement of Commission Decision 2006/522/EC of 25 July 2006 amending Decisions 2005/759/EC and 2005/760/EC as regards certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza and movements of certain live birds into the Community (OJ 2006 L 205, p. 28), and, second, the grant of all other necessary interim measures.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-327/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret) — TDC A/S v Teleklagenævnet, Erhvervs- og Vækstministeriet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/22/EC — Universal service — Articles 12 and 13 — Calculation of the cost of universal service obligations — Article 32 — Compensation for costs relating to additional mandatory services — Direct effect — Article 107(1) and Article 108(3) TFEU — Maritime radio safety and emergency services in Denmark and Greenland — National rules — Submission of an application for compensation for costs relating to additional mandatory services — Three-month time limit — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret) — TDC A/S v Teleklagenævnet, Erhvervs- og Vækstministeriet
   (Case C-327/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/22/EC - Universal service - Articles 12 and 13 - Calculation of the cost of universal service obligations - Article 32 - Compensation for costs relating to additional mandatory services - Direct effect - Article 107(1) and Article 108(3) TFEU - Maritime radio safety and emergency services in Denmark and Greenland - National rules - Submission of an application for compensation for costs relating to additional mandatory services - Three-month time limit - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness))
   (2017/C 053/15)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TDC A/S

      Defendants: Teleklagenævnet, Erhvervs- og Vækstministeriet

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The provisions of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) and, in particular, Article 32 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for a compensation mechanism for the provision of additional mandatory services by virtue of which an undertaking is not entitled to compensation from the Member State for the net cost of the provision of an additional mandatory service where the profits made by that undertaking on other services related to the universal service obligation are greater than the loss arising from the provision of the additional mandatory service.

               2.

               Directive 2002/22 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which an undertaking designated as the provider of additional mandatory services is entitled to compensation from the Member State for the net cost of providing those services only if that cost constitutes an unfair burden on that undertaking.

               3.

               Directive 2002/22 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the net cost borne by an undertaking designated to fulfil a universal service obligation is the result of the difference between all the revenue and all the costs connected with the provision of the service in question, including the revenue and the costs which the undertaking would also have registered had it not been a universal service operator.

               4.

               In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the fact that the undertaking entrusted with an additional mandatory service, within the meaning of Article 32 of Directive 2002/22, provides that service not only on the territory of Denmark but also on that of Greenland does not make any difference to the interpretation of the provisions of that directive.

               5.

               Article 32 of Directive 2002/22 must be interpreted as having direct effect, inasmuch as it prohibits the Member States from making the undertaking responsible for providing an additional mandatory service bear all or part of the costs connected with the provision of that service.

               6.

               The principles of good faith, equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the submission of applications for compensation for the loss in the previous financial year by the operator responsible for a universal service subject to a time limit of three months running from the expiry of the period within which that operator is required to send an annual report to the competent national authority, provided that that time limit is no less favourable than that provided for in national law for an analogous application and that it is not such as to render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred on undertakings by Directive 2002/22, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case T-194/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2017 — Klassisk investment v EUIPO (CLASSIC FINE FOODS) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark CLASSIC FINE FOODS — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2017 — Klassisk investment v EUIPO (CLASSIC FINE FOODS)
   (Case T-194/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark CLASSIC FINE FOODS - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Duty to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 283/61)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Klassisk investment Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2016 (Case R 1970/2015-1) concerning the international registration, designating the European Union, of the figurative mark CLASSIC FINE FOODS.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Klassisk investment Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.


title: Case C-543/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others, Jimmy Tessens and Others, Orde van Vlaamse Balies, Ordre des avocats du barreau d’Arlon and Others v Conseil des ministres (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Validity and interpretation of the directive — Services provided by lawyers — Liability to VAT — Right to an effective remedy — Equality of arms — Legal aid)

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others, Jimmy Tessens and Others, Orde van Vlaamse Balies, Ordre des avocats du barreau d’Arlon and Others v Conseil des ministres
   (Case C-543/14) (1)

   ((VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Validity and interpretation of the directive - Services provided by lawyers - Liability to VAT - Right to an effective remedy - Equality of arms - Legal aid))
   (2016/C 350/04)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour constitutionnelle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others, Jimmy Tessens and Others, Orde van Vlaamse Balies, Ordre des avocats du barreau d’Arlon and Others

      Defendant: Conseil des ministres

      Intervening parties: Association Syndicale des Magistrats ASBL, Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The examination of Article 1(2) and Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in the light of the right to an effective remedy and the principle of equality of arms under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has not revealed anything which might affect their validity in so far as those provisions impose VAT on services supplied by lawyers to clients who do not qualify for legal aid under a national legal aid scheme.

               2.

               Article 9(4) and (5) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed at Aarhus on 25 June 1998, cannot be relied on for the purposes of assessing the validity of Article 1(2) and Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112.

               3.

               Article 132(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the services supplied by lawyers for clients who qualify for legal aid under a national legal aid scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, are not exempt from VAT.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.


title: Case T-106/12: Action brought on 29 February 2012 — Cytochroma Development v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/18

         Action brought on 29 February 2012 — Cytochroma Development v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)
   (Case T-106/12)
   2012/C 138/34
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cytochroma Development, Inc. (St. Michael, Barbados) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister and A. Smith, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 December 2011 in case R 1235/2011-1; and

               —

               Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ALPHAREN’, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 4320297

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Hungarian trade mark registration No 134972 of the word mark ‘ALPHA D3’, for goods in class 5; Lithuanian trade mark registration No 20613 of the word mark ‘ALPHA D3’, for goods in class 5; Latvian trade mark registration No M30407 of the word mark ‘ALPHA D3’, for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 1(d)(2) of Commission Regulation No 216/96 in that a member of the Board who took the original decision was also a member of the Board that took the new decision after referral; infringement of Article 65(6) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 1(d)(1) of Commission Regulation No 216/96 regarding the measures taken to comply with the judgment of the General Court; Infringement of Article 76(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to the examination of facts of its own motion in a relative grounds case; infringement of the principle of legal certainty, as well as Article 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.


title: Case C-1/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 3 January 2012 — Ordem dos Técnicos Oficiais de Contas v Autoridade da Concorrência

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 3 January 2012 — Ordem dos Técnicos Oficiais de Contas v Autoridade da Concorrência
   (Case C-1/12)
   2012/C 89/18
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ordem dos Técnicos Oficiais de Contas

      Defendant: Autoridade da Concorrência

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must an institution such as the Ordem dos Técnicos Oficiais de Contas (OTOC) be regarded in its entirety as an association of undertakings for the purposes of applying the Community competition law rules (training market)? If so, is the present Article 101(2) TFEU to be interpreted as also rendering subject to those rules an entity which, like the OTOC, lays down binding rules of general application and does so in compliance with legal requirements concerning mandatory training of chartered accountants with a view to providing citizens with a quality service that can be relied on?

               2.

               If an entity such as the OTOC is required by law to implement a mandatory training system for its members, may the present Article 101 TFEU be interpreted as allowing the possibility of challenging the setting up of a training system legally imposed by the OTOC and by the Regulation governing that system, in so far as the latter strictly confines itself to giving effect to the legal requirement? Or, on the contrary, does this matter fall outside the scope of Article 101 and must it be examined under the present Article 56 et seq. TFEU?

               3.

               Having regard to the fact that the Wouters
                   (1) judgment, and similar judgments, were concerned with rules having an impact on the economic activity of the professional members of the professional association in question, do Articles 101 and 102 TFEU preclude rules on the training of chartered accountants which have no direct influence on their economic activity?

               4.

               In the light of Union competition law (in the training market), may a professional association impose the requirement, for the practice of the profession, of particular training provided only by it?

      (1)  Case C-309/99 Wouters [2002] ECR I-1577


title: Case T-418/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2007 — Investire Partecipazioni v Commission (Action for annulment — ERDF — Measure that cannot be the subject of an action — Preparatory measure — Inadmissibility)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/15

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2007 — Investire Partecipazioni v Commission
   (Case T-418/05) (1)

   (Action for annulment - ERDF - Measure that cannot be the subject of an action - Preparatory measure - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 8/28)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Investire Partecipazioni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti and A. Franchi, Lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and M. Velardo, Agents, assisted by G. Faedo, Lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of decisions allegedly contained in two letters from the Commission's Directorate General for Regional Policy of 11 and 23 August 2005, addressed to the Permanent Representation of the Italian Republic to the European Union, concerning the ineligibility, for assistance from the European Regional Development Fund, of a measure provided for in the Objective 2 Single Programming Document for the period 1997-1999 concerning the Region of Piedmont (Italy).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Investire Partecipazioni SpA shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.


title: Case T-30/09: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Engelhorn v OHIM — The Outdoor Group (peerstorm) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark peerstorm — Earlier Community and national word marks PETER STORM — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Genuine use of the earlier marks — Articles 15 and 43(2) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Articles 15 and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Engelhorn v OHIM — The Outdoor Group (peerstorm)
   (Case T-30/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark peerstorm - Earlier Community and national word marks PETER STORM - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Genuine use of the earlier marks - Articles 15 and 43(2) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Articles 15 and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2010/C 234/61
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Engelhorn KGaA (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: W. Göpfert and K. Mende, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: The Outdoor Group Ltd (Northampton, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2008 (Case R 167/2008-5), relating to opposition proceedings between The Outdoor Group Ltd and Engelhorn KGaA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Engelhorn KGaA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and of The Outdoor Group Ltd.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


title: Case C-184/09: Action brought on 26 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/6

         Action brought on 26 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-184/09)
   2009/C 167/12
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Adserá Ribera and A. Marghelis, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (2) or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               an order that the Kingdom of Spain should pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2006/21/EC into domestic law expired on 30 April 2008.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 102, p. 15.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56.


title: Case C-400/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 31 August 2012 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v MG

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/15

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 31 August 2012 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v MG
      (Case C-400/12)
      (2012/C 331/23)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

         Defendant: MG

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does a period in prison following sentence for commission of a criminal offence by a Union citizen break the residence period in the host Member State required for that person to benefit from the highest level of protection against expulsion under Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) or otherwise preclude the person relying on this level of protection?

                  2.

                  Does reference to ‘previous ten years’ in Article 28(3)(a) mean that the residence has to be continuous in order for a Union citizen to be able to benefit from the highest level of protection against expulsion?

                  3.

                  For the purposes of Article 28(3)(a), is the requisite period of 10 years during which a Union citizen must have resided in the host Member State calculated (a) by counting back from the expulsion decision; or (b) by counting forward from the commencement of that citizen's residence in the host Member State?

                  4.

                  If the answer to Question 3(a) is that the 10 year period is calculated by counting backwards, does it make a difference if the person has accrued ten years residence prior to such imprisonment?

         (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (Text with EEA relevance)
      OJ L 158, p. 77


title: Case C-513/12: Order of the President of the Court of 25 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Aslihan Nazli Ayalti v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/58

         Order of the President of the Court of 25 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Aslihan Nazli Ayalti v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-513/12) (1)

   2013/C 225/125
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Case C-203/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Volvo Car Company GmbH v Autohof Weidensdorf GmbH (Directive 86/653/EEC — Self-employed commercial agents — Termination of the agency contract by the principal — Agent’s entitlement to an indemnity)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/14

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Volvo Car Company GmbH v Autohof Weidensdorf GmbH
   (Case C-203/09) (1)

   (Directive 86/653/EEC - Self-employed commercial agents - Termination of the agency contract by the principal - Agent’s entitlement to an indemnity)
   2010/C 346/22
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Volvo Car Company GmbH

      Defendant: Autohof Weidensdorf GmbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 18(a) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17) — Termination of agency contract by the principal — Agent’s entitlement to indemnity — National legislation providing for loss of that entitlement in the event of default by the agent justifying immediate termination of the contract, even where the default occurs after termination of the agency contract but before the end of that contract and the principal became aware of the default only after the expiry of the contract

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 18(a) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents precludes a self-employed commercial agent from being deprived of his goodwill indemnity where the principal establishes a default by that agent which occurred after notice of termination of the contract was given but before the contract expired and which was such as to justify immediate termination of the contract in question

      (1)  OJ C 180, 01.08.2009.