title: Case C-351/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 12 July 2010 — Zollamt Linz Wels

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 12 July 2010 — Zollamt Linz Wels
   (Case C-351/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zollamt Linz Wels

      Defendant: Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Außenstelle Salzburg

      Intervening party: LAKI D.O.O.E.L

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 558(1) in conjunction with Article 555(1)(c) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 (‘the Customs Code Implementing Provisions’), (1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May 2001, to be interpreted as meaning that there is an unauthorised use of a means of transport in internal traffic as soon as the means of transport is loaded and the transport operation begins, in cases where authorisation has been granted for a vehicle for commercial use to be employed in internal traffic between two Member States, the vehicle is loaded in one of the two Member States but the destination (the planned place of unloading) is situated in a Member State other than those two Member States and authorisation has not been granted in respect of that other Member State?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is Article 204(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 215 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2) of 12 October 1992 (‘the Customs Code’) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the abovementioned circumstances, the customs debt is incurred in the Member State of loading and that that Member State is responsible for collecting the import duties, even though it is established only upon unloading that the transport operation took place in a Member State in respect of which there is no authorisation for use in internal traffic?

               3.

               Furthermore, if the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is Article 61 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (3) on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that, in the abovementioned circumstances, importation takes place in the Member State of loading and that that Member State is responsible for collecting the import turnover tax, even though it is established only upon unloading that the transport operation took place in a Member State in respect of which there is no authorisation for use in internal traffic?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-85/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — General Química v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Rubber chemicals sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Exchange of confidential information and price fixing — Imputation to parent company — Joint and several liability — Fines — Leniency notice)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/42

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — General Química v Commission
   (Case T-85/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Rubber chemicals sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Exchange of confidential information and price fixing - Imputation to parent company - Joint and several liability - Fines - Leniency notice)
   (2009/C 44/72)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicants: General Química, SA (Alava, Spain); Repsol Química, SA (Madrid, Spain); and Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid) (represented by: J.M. Jiménez Laiglesia Oñate and J. Jiménez Laiglesia Oñate, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Amato, then by F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/902/EC of 21 December 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement against Flexsys NV, Bayer AG, Crompton Manufacturing Company Inc. (former Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc.), Crompton Europe Ltd, Chemtura Corporation (former Crompton Corporation), General Química SA, Repsol Química SA and Repsol YPF SA (Case No COMP/F/C.38.443 — Rubber chemicals) (OJ 2006 L 353, p. 50), and, alternatively, the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders General Química, SA, Repsol Química, SA and Repsol YPF, SA to bear their own costs and pay the Commission's costs.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.


title: Case C-271/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of capital — Scope — Open pension funds — Limitation on the investment of capital assets outside the Member State concerned — Proportionality)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-271/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Scope - Open pension funds - Limitation on the investment of capital assets outside the Member State concerned - Proportionality)
   2012/C 49/04
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti and K. Herrmann, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, M. Szpunar, M. Jarosz and P. Kucharski, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 56 EC — Pension funds forming part of a national system of compulsory affiliation and based on the capitalisation system — National rules limiting and discouraging the investment by such funds of capital assets outside Poland

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court (Third Chamber):

               1.

               Declares that, by maintaining in force Articles 143, 136(3) and 136a(2) of the Law of 28 August 1997 on the organisation and operation of pension funds (Ustawa o organizacji i funkcjonowaniu funduszy emerytalnych), as amended, in that they limit investments by Polish open pension funds in the other Member States, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.


title: Case F-12/15: Action brought on 26 January 2015  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/49

         Action brought on 26 January 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-12/15)
   (2015/C 089/61)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, N. de Montigny, D. Verbeke and T. Van Lysebeth, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision determining the applicant’s rights to reimbursement of annual travel expenses pursuant to Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the CEOS.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the applicant’s salary statement for the month of June 2014 in so far as it applies, for the first time, Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in the version in force since 1 January 2014, in order to determine the reimbursement of his travel expenses;

               —

               to the extent necessary, annul the standard decision dated 15 October 2014 rejecting his claim;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case F-62/06: Action brought on  23 May 2006  — Guarnieri v Commission

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/35

         Action brought on 23 May 2006 — Guarnieri v Commission
   (Case F-62/06)
   (2006/C 165/72)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Daniela Guarnieri (St-Stevens-Woluwe, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision of 5 August 2005 adversely affecting the applicant in that, pursuant to the rule against overlapping allowances laid down in Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations, it deducts the Belgian orphans' pension from the family allowance and declares, as a result, that a given amount will be withheld from her pay in accordance with Article 85 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 14 February 2006 rejecting the applicant's complaint against the contested decision;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Commission official and mother of two children, received dependent child allowance under Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations. Following her spouse's death on 10 April 2005, she was informed that because of the amendment to Article 80 of the Staff Regulations, the Commission would not pay her any orphans' pension. On the other hand, she obtained family allowances and orphans' pension from the Belgian authorities. As the total amount of the benefits paid by the latter exceeded the amount of the Community family allowances, the Commission decided that the applicant was no longer entitled to the latter allowances.
   In support of her action, the applicant alleges, first, infringement of Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations. The allowances which she receives from the Belgian authorities are not allowances of like nature to those paid by the Community and so should not give rise to the deduction provided for by that provision.
   The applicant next pleads breach of the obligation, laid down in Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, to state the grounds on which any decision relating to a specific individual is based, breach of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, equal treatment and sound administration, and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.
   She also raises a plea of illegality against the part of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (1) which amends Article 80(4) of the Staff Regulations without providing for transitional measures. According to the applicant, the withdrawal of the orphans' pension for children whose deceased parent was not an official or member of the temporary staff should have been accompanied by transitional measures enabling officials to make a full actuarial calculation of their position.

      (1)  OJ L 124, 27.4.2004, p. 1


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 15 October 1996 in Case C-311/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands Raad van State): IJssel-Vliet Combinatie BV v. Minister van Economische Zaken (State aid for the construction of a fishing vessel)

text:
No C 370/2             LIN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7 . 12 . 96
reclassification of facts under national law with a view to                     a family benefit within the meaning of Article 4 (1 ) (h)
penalizing breaches of the Community legislation                                of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June
applicable at the material time.                                                 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
                                                                                employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
f 1 ) OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                            members of their families moving within the
                                                                                Community, in the version amended and updated by
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 , as
                                                                                amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of
                                                                                30 October 1989 .
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                2 . Where an employed person is subject to the legislation
                         of 10 October 1996                                     of a Member State and lives with his or her family in
                                                                                another Member State, that person 's spouse is entitled,
in Joined Cases C-245/94 and C-3 12/94 (references for a                        under Article 73 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 , to
preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Nordrhein                      receive a benefit such as child-raising allowance in the
Westfalen): Ingrid Hoever and Iris Zachow v. Land                               State of employment.
                       Nordrhein-Westfalen (*)
(Social security — Family benefits — Article 73 of                         3 . Article 3 (I ) and (2) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 4 (1 ) of Directive                       19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation
79/7/EEC        — Article          7 (2)    of Regulation      (EEC)            of the principle of equal treatment for men and women
                               No 1612/68)
                                                                                in matters of social security must be interpreted as
                              ( 96/C 370/03 )                                   meaning that a child-raising allowance such as that
                                                                                provided for by Article 1 et seq. of the Bundeserzie
                  (Language of the case: German)                                hungsgeldgesetz does not fall within the scope of that
                                                                                Directive.
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
             published in the European Court Reports)                      (!) OJ No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994.
                                                                                OJNoC38Q , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
In Joined Cases C-245/94 and C-3 12/94: reference to the
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the
Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen ( North Rhine
Westphalia Higher Social Court ) ( Germany ) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Ingrid Hoever and Iris Zachow of the one                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
part and the Land Nordrhein-Westfalen ( Land of North                                              of 15 October 1996
Rhine-Westphalia ) of the other part on the interpretation of
Article 4 ( 1 ) ( h) and Article 73 of Council Regulation ( EEC )          in Case C-3 11/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social                    the Netherlands Raad van State ): IJssel-Vliet Combinatie
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                                BV v. Minister van Economische Zaken 0 )
persons and to members of their families moving within the                         (State aid for the construction of a fishing vessel)
Community ( Official Journal, English Special Edition 1971
( II ), p. 416 ), in the version amended and updated by                                               ( 96/C 370/04 )
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ No
L 230 , 1983 , p. 6 ), as amended by Regulation ( EEC ) No
3427/89 of 30 October 1989 ( OJ No L 331 , 1989, p. 1 ), of                                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
Article 4 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December
1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
equal treatment for men and women in matters of social                                published in the European Court Reports)
security ( OJ No L 6, 1979, p. 24 ) and of Article 7 ( 2 ) of
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968
on      freedom     of   movement       for   workers    within  the       In Case C-3 11 /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Community ( Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968                 of the EC Treaty from the Netherlands Raad van State
(II ), p. 475 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of:                 ( Council of State ) for a preliminary ruling in the
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , President of the Chamber, L.                   proceedings pending before that court between IJssel-Vliet
Sevon, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur), P. Jann and M.                       Combinatie BV and Minister van Economische Zaken — on
Wathelet, Judges; Advocate-General : F. G. Jacobs;                         the interpretation of Articles 42 , 92 and 93 of the EEC
Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,                   Treaty, of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4028/86 of
has given a judgment on 10 October 1996, in which it rules:                 18 December 1986 on Community measures to improve
                                                                           and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector
1 . A benefit such as the child-raising allowance provided                 ( OJ No L 376 , 1986 , p. 7 ), of Council Directive 87/167/
       for by the Bundeserziehungsgeldgesetz, which is                     EEC of 26 January 1987 on aid to shipbuilding ( OJ No
       automatically granted to persons fulfilling certain                 L 69, 1987, p. 55 ) and of the guidelines for the examination
       objective criteria, without any individual and                      of State aids in the fisheries sector ( OJ No C 313 , 1988 ,
       discretionary assessment of personal needs, and which               p. 21 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
       is intended to meet family expenses, must be treated as             President, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray and L. Sevon
 ---pagebreak--- 7 . 12 . 96             EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 370/ 3
( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn,           however, accepted that the power of initiative of the
C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ), J. -P.                      Commission can authorize pilot studies and preparatory
Puissochet, G. Hirsch and M. Wathelet, Judges; C. O. Lenz,              action, properly so called .
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
 15 October 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows:           In the present case, the United Kingdom does not accept
                                                                        that the power of initiative justified or would justify the
 1 . The Commission, in exercising its powers under                     Commission in incurring the expenditure in issue . The
      Articles 92 and 93 of the EEC Treaty, could adopt the             funding which has been incurred and the further funding
     guidelines for the examination of State aids in the                which is proposed has resulted or would result in
     fisheries sector (OJ No C 313, 1988, p. 21 ), which                expenditure in pursuit of a policy which has already been
      require compliance, not only with criteria pertaining             ' bench tested' under the Youth for Europe programme .
      exclusively to competition policy, but also with those            Further, it is clear that the Commission does not intend to
      applicable in relation to the common fisheries policy,            conduct any proper appraisal of the results of the 'pilot
      even if the Council had not expressly authorized it to do         action' prior to making their proposal for a multiannual
      so .
                                                                        European voluntary service programme. In reality, the 'pilot
                                                                        action' therefore amounts to the launch of the European
                                                                        voluntary service prior to the adoption of the necessary
2 . A Member State, such as the Netherlands, which is                   basic measure .
      subject to the obligation of cooperation under
      Article 93 (1 ) of the Treaty and which has accepted the
      rules laid down in the guidelines must apply those                Furthermore, the decision or decisions are procedurally
      guidelines when deciding on an application for aid for            defective in that they are not supported by adequate
      the construction of a fishing vessel intended to form             reasoning.
      part of one of the Community fleets, irrespective of the
      area in which it fishes.
                                                                         (') Commission press release of 10 July 1996 ( IP/96/632 )
 (') OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                              announcing grants for European voluntary service projects .
 Action brought on 20 September 1996 by the United                       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des
 Kingdom against the Commission of the European                          Affaires de Securite Sociale d'Evry, by judgment of that
                              Communities                                court of 28 May 1996, in the case of Oufdia Djabali v.
                           ( Case C-305/96 )                                       Caisse d'Allocations Familiales de l'Essonne
                             ( 96/C 370/05 )                                                       Case C-314/96 )
                                                                                96/C 370/06 )
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities on 20 September 1996 by the                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 United Kingdom, represented by Mr John E. Collins,                      European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal des
 Assistant Treasury Solicitor, acting as Agent, assisted by Mr           Affaires de Securite Sociale d'Evry ( Social Security Court,
  Derrick Wyatt, QC, and Ms Helen Davies, Barrister, of the              Evry ) of 28 May 1996 , which was received at the Court
  English Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at              Registry on 26 September 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in
  the British Embassy, 14 Boulevard Roosevelt.                           the case of Ourdia Djabali v. Caisse d'Allocations
                                                                         Familiales de l'Essonne on the following question :
  The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision *Or
  decisions referred to in or comprised in the press release of
  the Commission of 10 July 1996 0 ) without prejudice to                Does Article 39 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2210/78
  the competence of the Court of Justice to declare the                   of 26 September 1978 concerning the conclusion of the
  decision or decisions in issue of definitive effect.                    Cooperation Agreement between the EEC and the People's
                                                                         Democratic Republic of Algeria ( ] ) apply to Mrs Djabali in
                                                                          regard to the award of a disabled adults' allowance where
  The applicant asks for costs against the Commission                     she has never been employed but will be entitled, possibly
  pursuant to Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure .                      in December 1997, to a pension in her capacity as a 'non
                                                                          working mother' ( mere au foyer )?
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          (!) OJNoL263 , 27. 9 . 1978 , p . 1 .
  All Community expenditure must be based on both a
  budgetary appropriation and a basic measure . It is,


title: Action brought on 8 July 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-245/98)

text:
5.9.98                 EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 278/21
communication of transposition measures. The Directives            8 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
should have been transposed by no later than 1 July 1994.          Communities, represented by Maria Patakia and Bernard
                                                                   Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
(1 ) OJ L 228, 11.2.1992, p. 1.
                                                                   Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(2 ) OJ L 360, 9.12.1992, p. 1.
(3 ) OJ L 228, 16.8.1973, p. 3.
(4 ) OJ L 63, 13.3.1979, p. 1.
                                                                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                   that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð declare that, by prohibiting the issue by banks
                                                                       established outside France of certificates of deposit
References for preliminary rulings by Juzgado de Primera               and issues of Euro-bonds in French francs for an
Instancia No 35, Barcelona, by orders of that court of                 initial term of less than one year, as well as issues of
31 March 1998 (first two cases) and of 1 April 1998 in                 national bonds for an initial term of less than three
the cases of OceÂano Grupo Editorial SA and Others and                 months, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
               R. Murciano Quintero and Others                         obligations under Article 73b of the EC Treaty,
             (Joined Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98)                       Article 59 of the EC Treaty and Council Directive 89/
                                                                       646/EEC (1),
                          (98/C 278/35)
                                                                   Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of Juzgado de Primera
Instancia (Court of First Instance) No 35, Barcelona, of
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
31 March 1998 (in the first two cases) and 1 April 1998,
which were received at the Court Registry on 8 July 1998,
for a preliminary ruling in the cases of OceÂano Grupo
Editorial SA and Others and R. Murciano Quintero (Case             Ð Infringement of Article 73b of the EC Treaty: the
C-240/98), Salvat Editores SA and J. M. SaÂnchez Alcón                 rules governing the Euro-franc market, adopted on
Prades (C-241/98), Salvat Editores SA and J. L. Copano                 19 November 1996 by the Issues Board, continue to
Badillo (C-242/98), Salvat Editores SA and M. Berroane                 provide that the term for which securities are issued in
(C-243/98), and Salvat Editores SA and E. VinÄas Feliu                 the context of an issue on the Euro-franc market may
(C-244/98), on the following question:                                 not be less than one year. The rule prohibiting banks
                                                                       established outside France from issuing certificates of
                                                                       deposit and short-term securities in francs constitutes a
Whether the scope of the consumer protection provided by               restriction on the free movement of capital, contrary
Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) on unfair terms in                     to Article 73b of the EC Treaty,
consumer contracts is such that the national court may
consider of its own motion whether a term is unfair when
making its preliminary assessment as to whether leave              Ð Infringement of Article 59 and of Directive 89/646/
should be granted for a claim to proceed before the                    EEC: since the issue by banks of certificates of deposit
ordinary courts.                                                       or of bonds constitutes a service within the meaning of
                                                                       Article 60 of the EC Treaty, Article 59 precludes the
(1) OJ L 95, 21.4.1993, p. 29.                                         application of national rules of any kind which, in the
                                                                       absence of any objective justification, restrict the
                                                                       possible exercise by a supplier of services of his
                                                                       freedom to provide such a service. By prohibiting
                                                                       banks which are not established in France from issuing
                                                                       securities in the same way as domestic banks, which
                                                                       may freely do so, the measures complained of also
                                                                       constitute restrictions on freedom to provide banking
Action brought on 8 July 1998 by the Commission of the                 services, contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty and
     European Communities against the French Republic                  Article 18(1) of Directive 89/646/EEC, which confers
                                                                       on all banks within the Community freedom to
                        (Case C-245/98)
                                                                       provide cross-border banking services.
                          (98/C 278/36)
                                                                   (1) OJ L 386, 30.12.1989, p. 1.
An action against the French Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 January 2002 in Case T-101/00: Miguel Ángel Martín de Pablos v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Open competition — Non-admission of the applicant to the oral test — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
C 97/10                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       20.4.2002
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       11 December 2001                                                         of 23 January 2002
in Case T-46/00: Kvitsjøen AS v Commission of the
                                                                        in Case T-101/00: Miguel Ángel Martı́n de Pablos v
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Fisheries — Measures for the conservation and management
of fishery resources applicable to vessels flying the flag of           (Officials — Open competition — Non-admission of the
Norway — Withdrawal of a licence and special fishing                    applicant to the oral test — Action for annulment — Action
permit — Audi alteram partem principle — Principle of                                               for damages)
                         proportionality)
                                                                                (2002/C 97/21)
                          (2002/C 97/20)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
Case T-46/00, Kvitsjøen AS, established in Fosnavag (Norway),           In Case T-101/00: Miguel Ángel Martı́n de Pablos, residing in
represented by K. Storalm, J. Hoekstra and G. Vanquathem,               Madrid, represented by J. Moreno Núñez, lawyer, of Calle
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-              Santo Cruz de Marcenado 7, Madrid, v Commission of the
mission of the European Communities, represented by T. van              European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia, J. Currall and
Rijn, acting as Agent, assisted by F. Tuytschaever, lawyer, with        E. Gippini Fournier) — application, first, for annulment of the
an address for service in Luxembourg: application for the               decision of the selection board refusing to admit the applicant
annulment of the Commission decision of 22 December 1999                to the oral test in open competition COM/A/11/98 and,
withdrawing from the Norwegian fishing vessel Kvitsjøen its             second, for compensation for the damage allegedly caused by
licence and special fishing permit for Community waters and             the late notification of that decision — the Court of First
refusing to grant it that licence and permit before 30 June             Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, Presi-
2000, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed             dent, and N. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Admi-
of: P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke,          nistrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 January
Judges, Registrar: J. Plingers, Administrator, has given a judg-        2002, in which it:
ment on 11 December 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                        1.    Dismisses the application;
1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                        2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs, including those
2.    Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of the              relating to the proceedings for interim measures.
      Commission.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.                                              (1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.


title: Case C-457/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Construction products — National approval procedure — Failure to take account of approval certificates drawn up in other Member States — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Non-implementation — Article 228 EC — Subject-matter of the dispute — Determination during the pre-litigation procedure — Subsequent extension — Not permissible)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-457/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Construction products - National approval procedure - Failure to take account of approval certificates drawn up in other Member States - Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Non-implementation - Article 228 EC - Subject-matter of the dispute - Determination during the pre-litigation procedure - Subsequent extension - Not permissible)
   2009/C 267/20
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and P. Andrade, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inês Fernandes, acting as Agent, N. Ruiz and C. Farinhas, advogados)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 228 EC — Failure to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 November 2005 in Case C-432/02 — Application for a penalty payment to be imposed

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.


title: Case T-296/13: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — Adler Modemärkte v OHIM — Blufin (MARINE BLEU)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/51

         Order of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — Adler Modemärkte v OHIM — Blufin (MARINE BLEU)
   (Case T-296/13) (1)

   (2015/C 320/68)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Case C-344/00 P: Appeal brought on 18 September 2000 by Michel Hendrickx against the judgment delivered on 13 July 2000 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-87/99 between Michel Hendrickx and European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

text:
C 335/36              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.11.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              law in finding that the AECC had not committed a
                                                                             manifest error of assessment or misused its powers by
The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in                   not considering the applicant’s application and in not
Case C-335/00 (2); the period for transposition laid down by                 declaring that the contested decision was manifestly
Article 2 of the Directive expired on 30 June 1999.                          vitiated by an inadequate statement of reasons.
(1) OJ L 318, 27.11.1998, p. 43.                                       —     Error in law: the Court of First Instance committed an
(2) OJ C ...                                                                 error in law by considering that the applicant had not
                                                                             lodged within the time-limits a complaint against the
                                                                             decision not to renew his contract as a temporary
                                                                             member of staff beyond 30 June 1998. A definitive and
                                                                             unambiguous decision to that effect is not to be found in
                                                                             the letter from the Director of CEDEFOP of 25 May 1998
                                                                             but in the letter of 3 June 1998 which is based on a
Appeal brought on 18 September 2000 by Michel Hend-                          reexamination of the applicant’s legal situation in the
rickx against the judgment delivered on 13 July 2000 by                      light of a new fact, namely the report of the chairperson
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                      of the selection committee.
European Communities in Case T-87/99 between Michel
Hendrickx and European Centre for the Development of
                      Vocational Training
                       (Case C-344/00 P)
                        (2000/C 335/62)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 July 2000 by
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-87/99 between Michel
Hendrickx and European Centre for the Development of
Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) was brought before the Court
of Justice of the European Communities on 18 September                 Appeal brought on 19 September 2000 by the Fédération
2000 by Michel Hendrickx, represented by Jean-Nöel Louis and           Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des Régions de France
Véronique Peere, with an address for service in Luxembourg at          (FNAB), the Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs de
the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire s.à.r.l., 13 Avenue       Distributeurs de Produits de l’Agriculture Biologique
du Bois.                                                               (SETRAB) and Sàrl Est Distribution Biogam against the
                                                                       order delivered on 11 July 2000 by the Court of First
The appellant claims that the Court should:                            Instance (Third Chamber) in Case T-268/99 between
                                                                       the Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des
—     annul the decision by CEDEFOP rejecting the applicant’s          Régions de France (FNAB), the Syndicat Européen des
      application for the post of Head of General Support              Transformateurs et Distributeurs de Produits de l’Agricul-
      Services (Administration);                                       ture Biologique and Sàrl Est Distribution Biogam and the
                                                                                Council of the European Union
—     annul the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract
      as a member of the temporary staff contract beyond
      30 June 1998;
                                                                                (Case C-345/00 P)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas and main arguments                                                                        (2000/C 335/63)
—     Error in law: the Court of First Instance committed an
      error in law by considering that the authority empowered
      to conclude contracts of employment (AECC) had not               An appeal against the order delivered on 11 July 2000 by the
      committed a manifest error of assessment or misused its          Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
      powers by not considering the applicant for the post of          Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
      Head of General Support Services (Administration) on             the European Communities on 19 September 2000 by the
      the ground that he ‘... has not obtained the minimum             Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des Régions de
      requisite number of points’. The Court committed an              France (FNAB), the Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs et
      error of assessment by not verifying the lawfulness of the       Distributeurs de Produits de l’Agriculture Biologique (SETRAB)
      work of the selection committee and, in particular, of the       and Sàrl Est Distribution Biogam, represented by Dirk Leer-
      decision to set a minimum of 70 % of the points in               makers, of the Brussels and Luxembourg Bars, and Catriona
      the view of the binding nature of vacancy/competition            Hatton, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg
      notices. In those circumstances, it committed an error in        at 5 Place du Théâtre.


title: Case C-95/17 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2017 by European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-112/13: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/9

         Appeal brought on 22 February 2017 by European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-112/13: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-95/17 P)
   (2017/C 161/12)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd; Société des produits Nestlé SA

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Contested Judgment,

               —

               order Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd to bear the costs incurred by the Office.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Violation of Article 36, first sentence, of the Statute of the Court of Justice

   The General Court based its Judgment on contradictory reasoning while accepting, on the one hand, that ‘proof may be adduced globally for all the Member States concerned’ and requiring, on the other hand, that the acquisition of distinctive character be established in each and every Member State, individually (see paragraph 139 of the Contested Judgment).

      Violation of Articles 7(3) and 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009
       (1)

   The General Court misapplied the Court of Justice’s guidance as set out in its Judgment of 24 May 2012, Case C-98/11P, Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG/OHIM, (Shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red ribbon), ECLI:EU:C:2012:307, at paragraphs 62 and 63 (hereafter the ‘Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli Judgment’) in requiring proof of the acquisition of distinctive character be established in each and every Member
   State, individually.
   The General Court should have examined whether the evidence submitted by the EU trade mark proprietor establishes acquisition of distinctive character in the European Union as a whole, irrespective of national borders.
   By focusing exclusively on national markets, the General Court wrongly ignored that the territorial extent of the recognition of the mark is only one of the relevant factors when determining whether this mark has acquired distinctive character through use in the European Union. The General Court thus failed to have regard to criteria which are relevant in the context of a ‘single market’, in particular (i) the proportion of the public which has been shown to be familiarised with the mark compared to the European consumers as a whole; (ii) the geographical importance and repartition of the areas in which acquired distinctive character was established; and (iii) the economic importance of the areas in which acquired distinctive character was established for the European market of the goods and services at issue.
   The Contested Judgment’s approach cannot be justified by the public interest underlying the absolute ground for cancellation at issue. There are safeguarding measures which balance the possibility for the proprietor of an EU trade mark to enforce the exclusive rights even in Member States in which the EU trade mark has not acquired the same level of distinctive character as in other Member States.

      (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-278/02: Action brought on 10 September 2002 by Dyson Limited against the Office for the Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
C 289/28                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23.11.2002
technique’. Using this technique, the transactions of the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
applicants that are made at a price higher then the average
price, are brought down to a price equal to the average price.
According to the applicants, the Commission did not apply                   The applicant is an association bringing together more than
the average-to-transaction methodology correctly as a result                230 multinational companies, who together have invested
of using the ‘zeroing technique’. The applicants submit that                hundreds of millions of euros in the establishment of coordi-
the objective of the average-to-transaction methodology is to               nation centres in Belgium, based on legislation dating from the
ensure a fair comparison and not to yield higher dumping                    early 1980s permitting the establishment of coordination
margins.                                                                    centres for multinational companies. It explains that this
                                                                            legislation was found by the Commission on two separate
                                                                            occasions in 1984 and 1987 to fall outside Community rules
                                                                            on state aids and that, encouraged by these findings, the
( 1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2479/2001 of 17 December
                                                                            coordination centres invested in Belgium and have, over the
     2001 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of
     recordable compact disks originating in Taiwan (OJ L 334, p. 8).
                                                                            last 15 years, significantly expanded their presence there.
( 2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1050/2002 of 13 June 2002 imposing
     a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the
     provisional duty imposed on imports of recordable compact disks        The applicant states that the Commission’s decision to initiate
     originating in Taiwan (OJ L 160, p. 2).                                the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC in respect of this
( 3) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on               Belgian legislation (the contested decision) abruptly, arbitrarily
     protection against dumped imports from countries not members           and without any adequate reasoning re-classifies it as an aid
     of the European Community (OJ 1996, L 56, p. 1).                       within the meaning of Article 87(1) and reaches preliminary
                                                                            negative conclusions as to its compatibility with the common
                                                                            market, thereby ‘at a stroke’ removing legal certainty and
                                                                            infringing the legitimate expectations of the Belgian Coordi-
                                                                            nation Centres.
                                                                            The applicant submits that the Commission’s decision is
                                                                            unlawful, being in breach of Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation 659/
                                                                            1999, and has no other basis in Community law. The
                                                                            Commission’s alternative legal basis for its decision to the
Action brought on 12 September 2002 by Forum 187 asbl                       effect that it is entitled to reverse a decision taken 15 years
   against the Commission of the European Communities                       earlier (either under Article 1(b)(v) or under general adminis-
                                                                            trative principles) is likewise unfounded in Community law
                                                                            and should be annulled. In particular, this alternative legal
                          (Case T-276/02)                                   basis for the Commission decision infringes the principles of
                                                                            legal certainty and legitimate expectations. The applicant
                                                                            considers therefore that, especially taking into account the
                          (2002/C 289/52)                                   novel legal basis upon which the decision purports to be taken
                                                                            and the substantial economic interests involved, the decision
                                                                            is inadequately reasoned, in breach of Article 253, and should
                     (Language of the case: English)                        be annulled.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 September 2002 by Forum 187
asbl, Brussels, Belgium, represented by Mr Alastair Sutton,                 Action brought on 10 September 2002 by Dyson Limited
barrister and Mr James Killick, barrister.                                  against the Office for the Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                          (Case T-278/02)
—      Annul the Commission’s Notice of its decision to initiate                                     (2002/C 289/53)
       the procedure laid down in Article 88 (2) of the EC Treaty
       published in the OJ C 147, p. 2 on 20 June 2002.                                        (Language of the case: English)
—      Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                            An action against the Office for the Harmonisation in the
—      Take such other or further steps as justice may require.             Internal Market was brought before the Court of First Instance
 ---pagebreak--- 23.11.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 289/29
of the European Communities on 10 September 2002 by                       Communities on 15 September 2002 by J.J. Pikaart and
Dyson Limited, Malmesbury, Wiltshire (United Kingdom),                    Others, represented by M.J. van Dam and R.D. Ouwerling.
represented by D. Barron, C. Jones and C. Loweth, Lawyers.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (1) Annul the Decision of the European Commission of
—     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the                      16 July 2002 (E1/L 02157 D(2002) 11796;
      Office of 2 July 2002 (Case R655/2001-1),
—     remit the decision to the Board for further consideration           (2) Order the defendants to pay the costs.
      in respect of the other absolute grounds of refusal raised
      by the examiner under Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of
      Regulation No 40/94,
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the Office to pay the applicant’s costs.
                                                                          The applicants own the inland waterway vessel Factotum. In
                                                                          1997 the mid and bow sections of the Factotum were replaced.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           At the same time the tonnage of the Factotum was increased
                                                                          through lengthening the mid and bow sections. The old mid
                                                                          and bow sections were left unused by the applicants. The
Trade Mark:                   ‘Feature of goods’ consisting of            original plans to make this segment into a pusher craft were
                              ‘a transparent bin or collection            not put into effect because of a possible old-for-new obligation
                              chamber forming part of an exter-           pursuant to Regulation No 1101/89 ( 1).
                              nal surface of a vacuum cleaner’
                              — Application No 522144
                                                                          However, the Netherlands Fund imposed a levy on the
Goods and services:           ‘Apparatus for cleaning, polishing
                              and shampooing floors and car-              applicants pursuant to the old-for-new rule in Regu-
                              pets; vacuum cleaners; carpet               lation 1101/89. According to the applicants, the Factotum
                                                                          was hereby regarded as a newly constructed motor-vessel.
                              shampooers; floor polishers; parts
                              and fittings for all the aforesaid
                              goods’ in Class 7 of the Nice
                              classification).                            The applicants then asked the Commission how Article 8
                                                                          of Regulation 1101/89 should be applied in the specific
Decision       challenged     Refusal by the examiner to regis-           circumstances. The applicants’ present action contests the
before the Board of           ter.                                        interpretation given by the Commission.
Appeal:
Pleas in law:                 Misinterpretation                   of      The applicants submit that the alterations to the Factotum did
                              Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No            not constitute a newly constructed vessel or any of the other
                              40/94.                                      cases set out in Article 8 of Regulation 1101/89. According to
                                                                          the applicants, the replacement of the section of the Factotum
                                                                          increases the total capacity of inland waterway vessels only in
                                                                          so far as it lengthens the Factotum. In other words, the old-
                                                                          for-new obligations should have been limited to the additional
                                                                          tonnage.
Action brought on 15 September 2002 by J.J. Pikaart and                   The applicants also submit that if the old mid and bow section
Others against Commission of the European Communities                     were to be converted to a pusher vessel, that is no reason to
                                                                          impose old-for-new obligation in respect of the motor-vessel
                                                                          tonnage of the Factotum. The applicants submit that this
                        (Case T-280/02)
                                                                          extension concerns pusher vessel tonnage for which the old-
                                                                          for-new obligations are less severe than those for motor-vessel
                        (2002/C 289/54)                                   tonnage.
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                          (1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 of 27 April 1989 on
                                                                               structural improvements in inland waterway transport (OJ L 116,
                                                                               p. 25).
An action against Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Case T-400/13: Action brought on 5 August 2013 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Cosmetica Cabinas (AINHOA)

text:
               12.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/9

         Action brought on 5 August 2013 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Cosmetica Cabinas (AINHOA)
   (Case T-400/13)
   2013/C 298/16
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Granado Carpenter and M. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cosmetica Cabinas, SL (El Masnou, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 6 June 2013 given in Case R 1643/2012-1;

               —

               Award the applicant the cost of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘AINHOA’ — Community trade mark registration No 2 720 811

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The cancellation applicant relied on Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and/or 8(5), in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.


title: Case C-101/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Milano — Prima sezione penale by order of that Court of 26 November 2002 in the criminal proceedings against Alfonso Galeazzo and Marco Benatti

text:
C 101/28                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
Action brought on 4 March 2003 by the Commission of                       — Prima sezione penale (Milan District Court, First Criminal
          the European Communities against Ireland                        Chamber) of 26 November 2002, received at the Court
                                                                          Registry on 4 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
                            (Case C-99/03)                                criminal proceedings against Alfonso Galeazzo and Marco
                                                                          Benatti on the following questions:
                           (2003/C 101/47)
                                                                          1.    Does Article 6 of Directive 68/151/EEC ( 1) on co-ordi-
                                                                                nation of safeguards which, for the protection of the
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                       interests of members and others, are required by Member
Justice of the European Communities on 4 March 2003 by the                      States of companies within the meaning of the second
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                          paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view
James Flett, acting as agent, with an address for service in                    to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the
Luxembourg.                                                                     Community concern not only cases of failure to publish
                                                                                the balance sheet and profit and loss account, but also
                                                                                cases where those documents are published but their
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                     contents are false, given that the harm to the interests of
                                                                                members and third parties is clearly greater in the latter
1)    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                   case? Is the directive intended in that respect to lay down
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                    a minimum level of protection at Community level
      Directive 2000/52/EC of the Commission of 26 July                         leaving it to the Member States to put in place means of
      2000 amending Directive 80/723/EC on the transparency                     protection against the submitting of false balance sheets
      of financial relations between Member States and public                   or the publishing of false company accounts?
      undertakings ( 1), or in any event by failing to communi-
      cate them forthwith to the Commission, Ireland has failed
      to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and the Directive;       2.    Do the criteria of effectiveness, proportionality and
                                                                                dissuasiveness, which the penalties to be adopted by the
2)    order Ireland to pay the costs.                                           Member States under Council Directive 68/151 must
                                                                                satisfy in order to be regarded as appropriate, refer to the
                                                                                nature or type of penalty considered in the abstract, or
                                                                                rather to its application in practice having regard to the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 structural characteristics of the legal system within which
                                                                                it takes effect?
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the             3.    Are the principles set out in Council Directive 78/660/
period for compliance laid down in the directive. When that                     EEC (2) of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the
period expired on 31 July 2001 Ireland had failed to adopt the                  Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of
measures necessary to comply with the directive referred to in                  companies, Council Directive 83/349/EEC (3) of 13 June
the conclusions of the Commission, or in any event had failed                   1983 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on consoli-
to inform the Commission of such measures.                                      dated accounts and Council Directive 90/605/EEC (4) of
                                                                                8 November 1990 amending Directive 78/660/EEC on
                                                                                annual accounts and Directive 83/349/EEC on consoli-
( 1) OJ L 193 of 29.7.2000, p. 75.                                              dated accounts as regards the scope of those directives,
                                                                                upon which national measures relating to the drafting
                                                                                and contents of annual accounts and annual reports, in
                                                                                particular, of capital companies, must be based, to be
                                                                                interpreted as precluding a Member State from setting
                                                                                minimum thresholds below which inaccurate statements
                                                                                in annual accounts and annual reports relating to com-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                          panies limited by shares, partnerships limited by shares
Milano — Prima sezione penale by order of that Court of                         and limited liability companies are not punishable?
26 November 2002 in the criminal proceedings against
             Alfonso Galeazzo and Marco Benatti
                           (Case C-101/03)                                (1 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 41.
                                                                          (2 ) OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11.
                                                                          (3 ) OJ 1983 L 193, p. 1.
                           (2003/C 101/48)                                (4 ) OJ 1990 L 317, p. 60.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Milano


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 7 November 1996 in Case C-262/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (Failure to fulfil obligations - Transposition of Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC and 86/280/EEC on the discharge of certain dangerous substances into the aquatic environment)

text:
No C 9/8              LJN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           . . 97
1 . Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period                 person who undertakes, as an unremunerated activity, the
      laid down the laws, regulations and administrative                 care of his or her handicapped spouse, whatever the extent
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive              of that activity and the competence required in order to
      91 /263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the approximation                  perform it, where the person in question did not, in order
      of the laws of the Member States concerning                        to do so, abandon an occupational activity or interrupt
      telecommunications terminal equipment, including the               efforts to find employment.
      mutual recognition of their conformity, the Grand
      Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its                       (') OJ No C 174, 8 . 7. 1995 , p . 2 .
      obligations pursuant to the Directive and in particular            ( 2 ) OJ No L 6 , 10 . 1 . 1979, p . 24 .
      under Article 1 7 thereof.
2 . Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
      costs.
f 1 ) OJ No C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994, p . 10 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 128 , 23 . 5 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 7 November 1996
                                                                         in      Case C-262/95 : Commission of the European
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany ( J )
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                         (Failure to fulfil obligations — Transposition of Directives
                        of 7 November 1996                               82/1 76/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC and
in Case C-77/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 86/280ZEEC on the discharge of certain dangerous
the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht, Bremen): Bruna                                  substances into the aquatic environment)
Alessandra Ziichner v. Handelskrankenkasse (Ersatzkasse )                                                ( 97/C 9/ 15 )
                                Bremen ( 1 )
(Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social
    security — Directive 79/7ZEEC — Working population)                                    (Language of the case: German)
                               ( 97/C 9/ 14 )
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                 (Language of the case: German)                                      published in the European Court Reports)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                      In      Case    C-262/95 :        Commission   of the    European
                                                                         Communities         (Agent:       Gotz zur Hausen )   v.   Federal
                                                                         Republic of Germany ( Agent: Ernst Roder) — application
In Case C-77/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to                     for a declaration that, by not adopting the necessary
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Hanseatisches                      measures to comply with:
Oberlandesgericht ( Higher Regional Court), Bremen
( Germany ), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Bruna-Alessandra                       — Council Directive 82/ 1 76/EEC of 22 March 1982 on
Ziichner v. Handelskrankenkasse ( Ersatzkasse ) Bremen —                        limit values and quality objectives for mercury
on the interpretation of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of                          discharges by the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry ( 2 ),
 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of
the principle of equal treatment for men and women in
matters of social security ( 2 ), and of the principles of               — Council Directive 83/513/EEC of 26 September 1983
Community law governing the liability of public                                 on limit values and quality objectives for cadmium
authorities — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: L.                       discharges ( 3 ),
Sevon, President of Chamber, acting for the President of
the Fifth Chamber ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, D. A. O.
Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; D. Ruiz                  — Council Directive 84/ 156/EEC of 8 March 1984 on
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal                        limit values and quality objectives for mercury
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                       discharges by sectors other than the chlor-alkali
7 November 1996 , in which it has ruled :
                                                                                electrolysis industry (4 ),
Article 2 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December
 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle                 — Council Directive 84/491 /EEC of 9 October 1984 on
of equal treatment for men and women in matters of                              limit values and quality objectives for discharges of
social security must be interpreted as not covering a                           hexachlorocyclohexane ( 5 ), and
 ---pagebreak---  11.1.97              I EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 9/9
— Council Directive 86/280/EEC of 12 June 1986 on                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      limit values and quality objectives for discharges of                                   ( Sixth Chamber)
      certain dangerous substances included in List I of the
      Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC (6 ),                                                   of 7 November 1996
                                                                      in    Case    C-3 15/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. Italian Republic ( ')
and in particular with Article 3 of each of those
Directives, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to              (Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose
fulfil its obligations pursuant to the EC Treaty — the                Directives 93/48/EEC, 93/49/EEC, 93/52/EEC, 93/61/
Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini,                                        EEC and 93/85/EEC)
President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur ),                                            ( 97/C 9/16 )
C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm,
Judges; P. Leger, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 7 November 1996, in which it:                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
1 . Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
      time-limits, the necessary measures to comply with:                        published in the European Court Reports)
     — Council Directive 82/176/EEC of 22 March 1982                  In Case C-3 15/95 : Commission of the European
          on limit values and quality objectives for mercury          Communities (Agent: Eugenio de March ) v. Italian
          discharges by the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry,       Republic (Agent: Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by
                                                                      Ivo Braguglia ) — application for a declaration that, by not
                                                                      adopting and bringing into force within the prescribed
     — Council Directive 83/513/EEC of 26 September                   periods the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
          1983 on limit values and quality objectives for             necessary to comply with:
          cadmium discharges,
                                                                      — Commission Directive 93/48/EEC of 23 June 1993
     — Council Directive 84/156/EEC of 8 March 1984                        setting out the schedule indicating the conditions to be
          on limit values and quality objectives for mercury               met by fruit plant propagating material and fruit
          discharges by sectors other than the chlor-alkali                plants intended for fruit production, pursuant to
          electrolysis industry,                                           Council Directive 92/34/EEC (2 ),
     — Council Directive 84/491 /EEC of 9 October 1984                — Commission Directive 93/49/EEC of 23 June 1993
          on limit values and quality objectives for                       setting out the schedule indicating the conditions to be
          discharges of hexachlorocyclohexane, and                         met by ornamental plant propagating material and
                                                                           ornamental plants pursuant to Council Directive 91/
                                                                           682/EEC ( 3 ),
     — Council Directive 86/280/EEC of 12 June 1986 on
          limit values and quality objectives for discharges of
          certain dangerous substances included in List I of          — Council Directive 93/52/EEC of 24 June 1993
          the Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC,                               amending Directive 89/556/EEC on animal health
                                                                           conditions governing intra-Community trade in and
                                                                           importation from third countries of embryos of
                                                                           domestic animals of the bovine species ( 4),
     and in particular with Article 3 of each of those
     Directives, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed
     to fulfil its obligations under those Directives.                — Commission Directive 93/61/EEC of 2 July 1993
                                                                           setting out the schedules indicating the conditions to
                                                                           be met by vegetable propagating and planting
2 . Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                      material, other than seed pursuant to Council
     costs.
                                                                           Directive 92/33/EEC ( 5 ), and
(!)  OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 , p . 9 .                            — Council Directive 93/85/EEC of 4 October 1993 on
(2)  OJ No L 81 , 27. 3 . 1982 , p . 29 .                                  the control of potato ring rot ( 6 ),
(3)  OJ No L 291 , 24 . 10 . 1983 , p. 1 .
(4 ) OJ No L 74 , 17. 3 . 1984, p. 49 .
(5)  OJ No L 274, 17. 10 . 1984, p . 11                               the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
(6)  OJ No L 181,4 . 7. 1986 , p . 16 .                               pursuant to those Directives and pursuant to the EC
                                                                      Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F.
                                                                      Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N.
                                                                      Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.


title: Case C-469/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 14 October 2014 — Masterrind GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/16

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 14 October 2014 — Masterrind GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
      (Case C-469/14)
      (2015/C 016/26)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Finanzgericht Hamburg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Masterrind GmbH

         Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is the provision contained in point 1.4 of Chapter V of Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (1), to the effect that, after 14 hours of travel, animals are to be given a rest period of at least one hour sufficient for them in particular to be given liquid and if necessary fed, after which they may be transported for a further 14 hours, to be interpreted as meaning that the periods of transport may also be interrupted by a rest period of more than one hour or by several rest periods at least one of which lasts for one hour?

                  2.

                  Is the paying agency of the individual Member State bound by the entry made by the official veterinarian at the exit point in accordance with Article 2(3) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 of 16 September 2010 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (2), with the result that the lawfulness of a refusal to make the entry is reviewable only by the authority accountable for the actions of the border veterinarian, or is the entry made by the official veterinarian nothing more than a mere procedural act by the authority which may be contested only in tandem with the appeals that lie against the paying agency’s substantive decisions?

         (1)  OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1.

         (2)  OJ 2010 L 245, p. 16.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 February 2000 in Case T-162/99: Luigia Dricot-Daniele and others v the Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of contested measure — No need to adjudicate)

text:
C 149/32                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.5.2000
Registrar, made an order on 7 March 2000, the operative part                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of which is as follows:
                                                                                of 24 February 2000
The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by Industrie des
Poudres Sphériques to the intervener Péchiney Électrométallurgie is       in Case T-162/99: Luigia Dricot-Daniele and others v the
fixed at FRF 207 507,50.                                                           Commission of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 54 of 4.3.1995.                                                   (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of contested measure
                                                                                — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (2000/C 149/62)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           In Case T-162/99: Luigia Dricot-Daniele, residing in Overijse
                         of 24 February 2000                               (Belgium), Patricia De Palma, residing in Brussels, and Claudine
                                                                           Hamptaux, residing in Brussels, officials of the Commission of
in Case T-104/99: AS Bolderaja and Others v Council of                     the European Communities, represented by L. Vogel , of the
                       the European Union (1)                              Brussels Bar, with an address for service at the Chambers of C.
                                                                           Kremer, of Faltz et Associés, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine, against
(Action for annulment — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No                       Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valse-
           194/1999 — Time-limit — Inadmissibility)                        sia and J. Currall ) — application for annulment of the elections
                                                                           held on 9, 10 and 11 March 1999 to the Staff Committee of
                                                                           the local Brussels section and the appointments made by that
                           (2000/C 149/61)
                                                                           committee following those elections — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
                     (Language of the case: English)                       President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 February 2000, the
                                                                           operative part of which is as follows:
In Case T-104/99: AS Bolderaja, established in Riga (Latvia),
Zaklady Plyt Pilśniowych SA w Krośnie Odrzańskim, estab-
                                                                           1. There is no need to adjudicate on this application.
lished in Krosno Odrzanskie (Poland), Alpex-Karlino SA w
Karlino, established in Karlino (Poland) and Zaklady Plyt                  2. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings
Pilśœniowych SA w Czarnej Wodzie, established in Czarna                        including the costs relating to the application for interim
Woda (Poland) represented by V.N. Akritidis, of the Athens                      measures.
Bar, and T. Pick, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and
Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt v Council of the European                (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
Union (Agents: S. Marquardt, H.-J. Rabe, G.M. Berrisch and
H.-G. Kamann) — application for the annulment of Council
Regulation (EC) No 194/1999 of 25 January 1999 imposing
definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of hardboard orig-
inating in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and
Russia and definitively collecting the provisional duties
imposed (OJ 1999 L 22, p. 16) — the Court (Fifth Chamber,
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Extended Composition), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
President, P. Lindh, J.D. Cooke, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 February                                     of 16 March 2000
2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           in Case T-262/99: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                                                the European Communities (1)
2. There is no need to adjudicate on the Commission’s application
                                                                           (Action for compensation — Manifest inadmissibility —
     for leave to intervene.
                                                                                Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
3. The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and, jointly
     and severally, to pay the costs of the Council save for those                                   (2000/C 149/63)
     relating to the preparation and submission of its defence.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.99.
                                                                           In Case T-262/99: Anthony Goldstein, residing in Harrow,
                                                                           Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R. St. John


title: Case T-500/15: Action brought on 31 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHIM — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY PRO)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/42

         Action brought on 31 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHIM — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY PRO)
   (Case T-500/15)
   (2015/C 354/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘VIEWTY PRO’ — Application for registration No 9 125 071

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2015 in Case R 1940/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea(s) in law

               —

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


Important legal notice

|

E1998P0003

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein) by decision of that court of 12 May 1998 in the case of Tradeparts AG (Case E-3/98)

Official Journal C 331 , 29/10/1998 P. 0024 - 0024

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein) by decision of that court of 12 May 1998 in the case of Tradeparts AG (Case E-3/98) (98/C 331/09)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 12 May 1998 of Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 18 May 1998, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Tradeparts AG, on the following questions.1. Is the business law provision in Liechtenstein's national law, to the effect that a managing director of a Liechtenstein legal person must have his residence in the country (the Principality of Liechtenstein), in conformity with the EEA Agreement and in particular in conformity with Article 31 et seq. dated 2 May 1992?2. If the answer to the first question is that the Liechtenstein business law provision of a requirement of residence for a managing director of a Liechtenstein company is not in conformity with the EEA Agreement, whether in view of the specific case of Liechtenstein, Protocol 15, safeguard measures in accordance with Article 112 of the EEA Agreement, and the declaration of the EEA Council on the freedom of choice of residence, could the requirement of residence nevertheless be justified with the consequence that the provisions of the Business Law (Article 17, Article 6(1)(a) are in conformity with the EEA Agreement?3. Do the grounds of public policy, public security or public health justify the business law provisions concerning the requirement of residence, either instead of or in addition to the special situation in Liechtenstein or on account of the exceptional provision of Article 33 of the EEA