title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 11 July 2002 in Case C-210/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Agriculture — Export refunds — False declaration — Penalty — Validity of point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 — Concept of "force majeure")

text:
C 233/8                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          28.9.2002
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
court between Flightline Ltd and Secretário de Estado dos
Transportes e Communicações, Transportes Aéreos Portugue-
ses SA (TAP), on the interpretation of Articles 3(2) and 4(1)(a)                                       (Fifth Chamber)
and (d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July
1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Com-                                                  11 July 2002
munity air routes (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 8) and Article 1(e) of
Commission Decision 94/698/EC of 6 July 1994 concerning
increase in capital, credit guarantees and tax exemption in                  in Case C-210/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
favour of TAP (Transportes Aéreos Portugueses) (OJ 1994                      the Bundesfinanzhof): Käserei Champignon Hofmeister
L 279, p. 29), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                           GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (1)
F. Macken (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gul-
mann, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and J. N. Cunha Rodríguez,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal                    (Agriculture — Export refunds — False declaration —
                                                                             Penalty — Validity of point (a) of the first subparagraph of
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                             Article 11(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87, as amended
9 July 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             by Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 — Concept of ‘force
                                                                                majeure’)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/12)
1.    The exercise by a Member State of the rights and powers laid
      down in Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92                                  (Language of the case: German)
      of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-
      Community air routes does not presuppose or mean that that
      Member State must waive its right under Article 3(2) of that           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      regulation to restrict competition until 1 April 1997 in                                  in the European Court Reports)
      cabotage services within its territory.
                                                                             In Case C-210/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
2.    In a public tender procedure organised in 1995 for the provision       EC, by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling
      of scheduled air services on a route subject to public service         in the proceedings pending before that court between Käserei
      obligations imposed on that route under Article 4 of Regulation        Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG and Hauptzollamt
      No 2408/92, a Member State was entitled to require air                 Hamburg-Jonas, on the validity of point (a) of the first
      carriers licensed by another Member State which submitted bids         subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/
      to meet the conditions laid down in Article 3(2) of that               87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules
      regulation, provided that the invitation to tender did not             for the application of the system of export refunds on
      continue to have effect beyond 1 April 1997.                           agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1), as amended by
                                                                             Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December
                                                                             1994 (OJ 1994 L 310, p. 57), and on the interpretation of the
                                                                             concept of ‘force majeure’ in the first indent of the third
3.    Article 1(e) of Commission Decision 94/698/EC of 6 July                subparagraph of Article 11(1) of the same regulation, the
      1994 concerning increase in capital, credit guarantees and tax         Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D. A. O. Edward, acting
      exemption in favour of TAP, which makes approval of the aid            for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and
      for which it provides subject to the condition that the Portuguese     C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,
      Republic honour its undertaking to apply Article 4 of Regu-            Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
      lation No 2408/92 to the autonomous regions of Madeira                 Registrar has given a judgment on 11 July 2002, in which it
      and the Azores with effect from 1 January 1996 at the latest           has ruled:
      and publish the public service obligations for the routes in
      question, does not preclude that Member State from exercising          1.    Examination of the first question referred has not revealed any
      its right under Article 3(2) of that regulation.                             factors capable of calling into question the validity of point (a)
                                                                                of the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Commission
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying
                                                                                down common detailed rules for the application of the system
                                                                                of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by
                                                                                Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December
( 1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
                                                                                1994, in so far as it penalises an exporter who, without fault
                                                                                on his part, applies for an export refund which exceeds that to
                                                                                which he is entitled.
                                                                             2.    On a proper interpretation of the first indent of the third
                                                                                subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87, as
                                                                                amended by Regulation No 2945/94, there is no force majeure
 ---pagebreak--- 28.9.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 233/9
      in the situation where an exporter completes an application for        education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC
      export refunds in good faith on the basis of incorrect information     (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
      supplied by the manufacturer of the exported goods, and he             of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and
      could not have discovered the inaccuracy of the information or         A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
      could have done so only by means of checks at the factory where        General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
      the goods were manufactured. Fault on the part of a co-                has given a judgment on 11 July 2002, in which it has ruled:
      contractor is an ordinary commercial risk and cannot be
      regarded as unforeseeable in the context of commercial trans-
      actions, the exporter having various means at his disposal to
      protect himself against such an eventuality.
                                                                             1.    No provision of Community law, as it presently stands,
                                                                                precludes a Member State from restricting the exercise of an
( 1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.                                                        activity such as that of a Heilpraktiker within the meaning of
                                                                                the German legislation to holders of a doctor’s qualification.
                                                                             2.    Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                                Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) do not preclude
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            —     a Member State which prohibits in its territory the exercise
                                                                                of the activity of a Heilpraktiker within the meaning of
                                                                                the German legislation by persons other than those with
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                               a doctor’s qualification from likewise prohibiting the
                                                                                organisation in its territory of training in that activity by
                                                                                unauthorised institutions, provided that that prohibition
                             11 July 2002                                                is applied in such a way that it covers only training of a
                                                                                kind liable to create confusion in the minds of the public
                                                                                as to whether the profession of Heilpraktiker may lawfully
in Case C-294/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                be exercised in the territory of the Member State in which
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen                                   the training is to take place;
      für Naturheilverfahren GmbH v Kurt Gräbner (1)
(Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services                            —     a Member State which prohibits in its territory the exercise
— Scope of Directive 92/51/EEC — National legislation                                    of the activity of a Heilpraktiker by persons other than
reserving medical practice, including the activities which                               those with a doctor’s qualification and prohibits training
Heilpraktikers are permitted to pursue in Germany, to                                    in that activity from likewise prohibiting the advertising
qualified doctors — National legislation restricting medical                             of such training offered in its territory if that advertising
training to certain institutions and prohibiting advertising                             concerns training of a kind which is prohibited in that
                          for such training)                                             Member State in accordance with the Treaty.
                           (2002/C 233/13)                                         However, Article 59 of the Treaty precludes a Member State
                                                                                which prohibits in its territory the exercise of the profession of
                                                                                Heilpraktiker and training in the activity of a Heilpraktiker
                    (Language of the case: German)                                 from likewise prohibiting the advertising of such training offered
                                                                                in a different Member State, if that advertising states where the
                                                                                training is to take place and mentions the fact that the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published             profession of Heilpraktiker may not be exercised in the first
                    in the European Court Reports)                                 Member State.
In Case C-294/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary                   (1 ) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH
and Kurt Gräbner, on the interpretation of Articles 52 and 59
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 43 and 49
EC) and of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a
second general system for the recognition of professional


title: Case C-384/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 19 July 2011 — Tate & Lyle Investments Ltd v Belgische Staat, other party: Syral Belgium NV

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 19 July 2011 — Tate & Lyle Investments Ltd v Belgische Staat, other party: Syral Belgium NV
   (Case C-384/11)
   2011/C 282/26
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tate & Lyle Investments Ltd

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Other party: Syral Belgium NV

      Question referred

   Does Article 63 TFEU (previously Article 56 of the EC Treaty) preclude legislation on the part of a Member State whereby a dividend distributed to a resident shareholder company, which has a holding of less than 10 % in the capital of another resident company but with a purchase value of at least EUR 1.2 million, is subject to withholding tax of 10 %, but whereby such withholding tax is deductible from the corporate tax payable in Belgium and the balance, if any, is refundable, and whereby such a company, where appropriate, is also entitled to the application of a tax regime (‘DBI’: definitief belasten inkomsten: definitively taxed income) which allows the tax base to be reduced still further by the costs related to the shareholding, whereas for companies established in another Member State of the European Union which receive such dividends, and distributions regarded as dividends, from an identical holding in a resident company, the 10 % withholding tax levied constitutes a final tax which is not refundable and which cannot be reduced by relying on the aforementioned tax regime (‘DBI’)?


title: Case C-496/10: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2012 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Venafro — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Aldo Patriciello (Article 104(3), first subparagraph of the Rules of Procedure — Member of the European Parliament — Protocol on Privileges and Immunities — Article 8 — Criminal proceedings for the offence of insulting behaviour — Statements made outside the precincts of the European Parliament — Definition of expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties — Immunity — Conditions)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/2

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2012 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Venafro — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Aldo Patriciello
   (Case C-496/10) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph of the Rules of Procedure - Member of the European Parliament - Protocol on Privileges and Immunities - Article 8 - Criminal proceedings for the offence of insulting behaviour - Statements made outside the precincts of the European Parliament - Definition of expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties - Immunity - Conditions)
   2012/C 109/03
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Venafro

      Criminal proceedings against

   Aldo Patriciello

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Venafro — Interpretation of Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities (OJ 1967 152, p. 13) — Member of the European Parliament charged with the offence of insulting behaviour in consequence of his making false accusations against a representative of the forces of order — Definition of expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties.

      Operative part of the order

   Article 8 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, annexed to the EU, FEU and EAEC Treaties, must be interpreted to the effect that a statement made by a Member of the European Parliament beyond the precincts of that institution and giving rise to prosecution in his Member State of origin for the offence of insulting behaviour, does not constitute an opinion expressed in the performance of his parliamentary duties covered by the immunity afforded by that provision unless that statement amounts to a subjective appraisal having a direct, obvious connection with the performance of those duties. It is for the court making the reference to determine whether those conditions have been satisfied in the case in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010


title: Case F-139/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Van Arum v Parliament (Staff case — Officials — Appraisal — Staff Report — Scope of the complaint referred to in Article 90 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/83

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Van Arum v Parliament
   (Case F-139/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Appraisal - Staff Report - Scope of the complaint referred to in Article 90 of the Staff Regulations)
   2009/C 267/149
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Rinse van Arum (Winksele, Belgium) (represented by: W. van den Muijsenbergh, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J.F. De Wachter, C. Burgos and K. Zejdová)

      Re:

   Staff case — Application to alter, or, alternatively, to annul the Staff Report, and to order the defendant to pay the token sum of EUR 1 as damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2009, p. 49.


title: Case T-288/12: Action brought on 26 June 2012 — EI du Pont de Nemours v OHIM — Zueco Ruiz (ZYTEL)

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/13

         Action brought on 26 June 2012 — EI du Pont de Nemours v OHIM — Zueco Ruiz (ZYTEL)
   (Case T-288/12)
   2012/C 273/23
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: EI du Pont de Nemours and Company (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Enrique Zueco Ruiz (Zaragoza, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 March 2012 in case R 464/2011-2; and

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘ZYTEL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 12 and 37

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 369314, of the word mark ‘ZYTEL’, for goods in classes 1 and 17; Well-known mark ‘ZYTEL’, for goods in classes 1 and 17

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.


title: Case C-17/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně (Czech Republic) lodged on 11 January 2010 — Toshiba Corporation, Areva T&D Holding SA, Areva T&D SA, Areva T&D AG, Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Alstom, Fuji Electric Holdings Co. Ltd, Fuji Electric Systems Co. Ltd, Siemens Transmission & Distribution SA, Siemens AG Österreich, VA TECH Transmission & Distribution GmbH & Co. KEG, Siemens AG, Hitachi Ltd, Hitachi Europe Ltd, Japan AE Power Systems Corp., Nuova Magrini Galileo SpA v Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně (Czech Republic) lodged on 11 January 2010 — Toshiba Corporation, Areva T&D Holding SA, Areva T&D SA, Areva T&D AG, Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Alstom, Fuji Electric Holdings Co. Ltd, Fuji Electric Systems Co. Ltd, Siemens Transmission & Distribution SA, Siemens AG Österreich, VA TECH Transmission & Distribution GmbH & Co. KEG, Siemens AG, Hitachi Ltd, Hitachi Europe Ltd, Japan AE Power Systems Corp., Nuova Magrini Galileo SpA v Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže
   (Case C-17/10)
   2010/C 100/23
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Krajský soud v Brně (Regional Court, Brno)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Toshiba Corporation, Areva T&D Holding SA, Areva T&D SA, Areva T&D AG, Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Alstom, Fuji Electric Holdings Co. Ltd, Fuji Electric Systems Co. Ltd, Siemens Transmission & Distribution SA, Siemens AG Österreich, VA TECH Transmission & Distribution GmbH & Co. KEG, Siemens AG, Hitachi Ltd, Hitachi Europe Ltd, Japan AE Power Systems Corp., Nuova Magrini Galileo SpA

      Defendant: Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (The Czech Authority for the Protection of Competition)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 81 of the EC Treaty (now Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty be interpreted to mean that that legislation must be applied (in proceedings brought after 1.5.2004) to the whole period of operation of the cartel, which commenced in the Czech Republic before that state’s entry to the European Union (that is, before 1.5.2004) and continued and ended after the Czech Republic’s entry to the European Union ?

               2.

               Must Article 11(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in conjunction with Article 3(1) thereof and recital 17 in the preamble thereto, with point 51 of the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities, (2) with the principle ne bis in idem under Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (3) and with the general principles of European law be interpreted as meaning that if the Commission brings proceedings after 1.5.2004 for infringement of Article 81 EC and makes a decision in that case:

                           a)

                           the Competition Authorities of the Member States are automatically relieved of their competence to deal with that conduct from that time onwards?

                           b)

                           the Competition Authorities of the Member States are relieved of their competence to apply to that conduct the provisions of domestic law containing parallel legislation to Article 81 EC (now Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2004 C 101, p. 43.

      (3)  OJ 2007 C 303, p. 1.


title: Case C-506/07: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de La Coruña — Spain) — Lubricantes y Carburantes Galaicos, S.L. v GALP Energía España SAU (The first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC — Exclusive supply contract for motor vehicle and other fuel between a supplier and a service station operator — Exemption — Agreement of minor importance — Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 — Article 12(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 — Articles 4(a) and 5(a) — Duration of the exclusive rights — Fixing of the retail price)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/7

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de La Coruña — Spain) — Lubricantes y Carburantes Galaicos, S.L. v GALP Energía España SAU
   (Case C-506/07) (1)

   (The first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC - Exclusive supply contract for motor vehicle and other fuel between a supplier and a service station operator - Exemption - Agreement of minor importance - Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 - Article 12(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 - Articles 4(a) and 5(a) - Duration of the exclusive rights - Fixing of the retail price)
   2010/C 11/12
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de La Coruña

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lubricantes y Carburantes Galaicos, S.L.

      Defendant: GALP Energía España SAU

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de La Coruña — Interpretation of Article 81(1)(a) EC, the eighth recital in the preamble to, and Articles 10 and 12(1)(c) and 12(2) of, Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements (OJ 1983 L 173, p. 5) and Articles 4(a) and 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21) — Exclusive distribution agreement for motor vehicle and other fuel between a supplier and a service station operator — Service station built by the supplier under a surface right granted by the reseller for a period of 25 years over a piece of the land and granted to the reseller to use for the same period of time

      Operative part

               1.

               A contract, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the creation of a right in rem, called a ‘surface right’, in favour of a supplier of petroleum products for a period of 25 years and authorises the latter to build a service station and to let that service station to the owner of the land for the same period as the duration of that right, and which contains clauses relating to the fixing of the retail price of goods and/or an exclusive purchasing obligation or a non-compete clause whose duration of application exceeds the time limitations laid down in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article [81](3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1582/97 of 30 July 1997 and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 270/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices, does not fall within the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1)EC provided that it is not likely to affect trade between the Member States and that it does not aim to significantly restrict competition or have that effect. It is the task of the national court to determine whether that is the case by taking account, inter alia, of the economic and legal context within which that contract is situated.

               2.

               Article 12(2) of Regulation No 1984/83, as amended by Regulation No 1582/97, must be interpreted as not precluding, for the purposes of the implementation of the derogation set out therein, the duration of an exclusive rights agreement from exceeding the time limitations laid down in that regulation, where the owner of a plot of land has granted to a supplier a surface right of a period of 25 years and the latter is required to build a service station to be let to the owner of the land so that he can operate that service station for the same period as the duration of that right.

               3.

               Article 5(a) of Regulation No 2790/1999 must be interpreted as precluding, for the purposes of the implementation of the derogation set out therein, the duration of an exclusive rights agreement from exceeding the time limitations laid down in that regulation, where the owner of a plot of land has granted to a supplier a surface right of a period of 25 years and the latter is required to build a service station to be let to the owner of the land so that he can operate that service station for the same period as the duration of that right.

               4.

               Contractual clauses relating to the retail price of goods, such as the clauses at issue in the main proceedings, are eligible for the block exemptions under Regulation No 1984/83, as amended by Regulation No 1582/97, and Regulation No 2790/1999 where the supplier restricts himself to imposing a maximum sale price or to recommending a sale price and where, therefore, it is genuinely possible for the reseller to determine that retail price. On the other hand, such clauses are ineligible for those exemptions where they lead, directly or by indirect or concealed means, to the fixing of a retail price or the imposition of a minimum sale price by the supplier. It is for the national court to determine whether such obligations constrain the reseller, taking account of all of the contractual obligations in their economic and legal context, and of the conduct of the parties to the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 09.02.2008.


title: Action brought on 2 May 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-170/97)

text:
No C 199/12                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28 . 6 . 97
on 2 May 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                        widening the scope of Directive 81/851/EEC (2 ) on
The Queen against Secretary of State for Defence, ex                          the approximation of provisions laid down by
parte: Terence Perkins, on the following question(s ):                        law, regulation or administrative action relating
                                                                              to veterinary medicinal products and laying down
1 . Must the requirement in Article 2 ( 1 ) of Council                        additional provisions on homeopathic veterinary
     Directive 76/207/EEC (') ('the Equal Treatment                           medicinal products, the Portuguese Republic has failed
     Directive') that there shall be ' no discrimination on the               to fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of
     grounds of sex either directly or indirectly by reference                Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 10 of
     in particular to marital or family status' be interpreted                Directive 92/74/EEC,
     as including discrimination based on a person's sexual
     orientation ?                                                      — in the alternative, declare that, by not informing the
                                                                              Commission forthwith of such measures, the
     If the answer to question I is yes, then:                                Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under the abovementioned provisions;
2 . Whether a policy adopted by a Member State without
     any exception or qualification to discharge from the               — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
     armed forces any person of homosexual orientation, is
     outside the scope of the EC Treaty and the legislation             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     thereunder if the Member State considers that it is
     appropriate and necessary for the purposes of ensuring
     combat effectiveness of its armed forces in the event of           The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
     war and so for the essential purpose of the defence of             paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
     that Member State .                                                Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to
                                                                        adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives
                                                                        addressed to them into their domestic law before the
     If the answer to question 2 is 'no', then:                         expiry of the period prescribed for doing so and forthwith
                                                                        to inform the Commission thereof. That period, which is
3 . Whether the policy adopted by "the Secretary of State               laid down in Article 10 of the Directive, expired on
     without any exception or qualification to discharge                31 December 1993 without the Portuguese Republic
     from the Services any person of homosexual                         having brought into force the necessary provisions .
     orientation is capable of being justified under Article 2
     (2 ) of the Equal Treatment Directive and, if so, what             (') OJ No L 2 97, 13 . 10. 1992 , p . 12 .
     approach and guidelines should be adopted in                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 317, 6 . 11 . 1981 , p . 1 .
     determining whether the policy is justified ?
(') Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
    implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
    and women as regards access to employment, vocational
    training and promotion, and working conditions ( OJ No L 39,
    14 . 2 . 1976 , p. 40 ).                                            Action brought on 2 May 1997 by the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-l 70/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/24 )
Action brought on 2 May 1997 by the Commission of the                   An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
   European Communities against the Portuguese Republic                 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                             Case C-169/97 )                            on 2 May 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
                             ( 97/C 199/23 )
                                                                        of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
An action brought against the Portuguese Republic was                   Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 2 May 1997 by the Commission of the                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
European Communities, representend by Francisco de
Sousa Fialho, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos               — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                    or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                               Commission Directive 91/412/EEC ( 1 ) of 23 July 1991
                                                                               laying down the principles and guidelines of good
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    manufacturing practice for veterinary medicinal
                                                                               products, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                      its obligations under the third paragraph of Article 189
      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with                    of the EC Treaty and Article 15 of Directive 91 /412/
      Council Directive 92/74/EEC (') of 22 September 1992                     EEC ,
 ---pagebreak--- 28 . 6 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 199/ 13
— in the alternative, declare that, by not informing                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     the Commission forthwith of such measures, the
     Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations           The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
     under the abovementioned provisions,                               paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
                                                                        Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to
                                                                        adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                       addressed to them into their domestic law before the
                                                                        expiry of the period prescribed for doing so and forthwith
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     to inform the Commission thereof. That period, which is
                                                                        laid down in Article 2 of the Directive, expired on
                                                                        1 January 1992 without the Portuguese Republic having
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                     brought into force the necessary provisions.
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                    (') OJ No L 373 , 31 . 12 . 1990 , p . 15 .
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives                    (2 ) OJ No L 317, 6 . 11 . 1981 , p . 1 .
addressed to them into their domestic law before the
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so and forthwith
to inform the Commission thereof. That period, which is
laid down in Article 15 of the Directive, expired on 23 July
1993 without the Portuguese Republic having brought
into force the necessary provisions .                                   Action brought on 2 May 1997 by the Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities against SIVU du Plan d'Eau de la
0 ) OJ No L 228 , 17. 8 . 1991 , p . 70 .                                          Vallée du Lot and Sàrl Hydro-Réalisations
                                                                                ( Case C-l 72/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/26 )
                                                                        An action against the SIVU du Plan d'Eau de la Vallee du
                                                                        Lot and Sari Hydro-Realisations was brought before the
Action brought on 2 May 1997 by the Commission of the                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 May
  European Communities against the Portuguese Republic                  1997 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                         ( Case C-171 /97 )                             represented by Richard B. Wainwright, Principal Legal
                                                                        Adviser, and Jean-Francis Pasquier, an national civil
                           ( 97/C 199/25 )                              servant on secondment to the Legal Service , acting as
                                                                        Agents, assisted by Nicole Coutrelis and Stephanie Ponsot,
                                                                        lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                   office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 Kirchberg.
on 2 May 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                  The Commission of the European Communities claims
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for              that the Court should :
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                   — order the SIVU and Sari Hydro-Realisations to pay to
                                                                              it the sum of ECU 83 928 ( eighty three thousand nine
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   hundred and twenty eight ecus ) together with the
                                                                              interest due thereon from 17 January 1991 , calculated
                                                                              at the rate applied by the EMCF in relation to its
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                     transactions in ecus, as published on the first working
      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with                   day of each month, and, in addition, statutory default
      Council Directive 90/676/EEC ( 1 ) of 13 December                       interest from 28 February 1993 ,
      1990 amending Directive 81 /851 /EEC on the
      approximation of the laws of the Member States                    — order the SIVU and Sari Hydro-Realisations to pay the
      relating to veterinary medicinal products ( 2 ), the                    costs .
      Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      Treaty and Article 2 of Directive 90/676/EEC,
                                                                         On 6 December            1990, in the context of Council
— in the alternative, declare that, by not informing the                 Regulation ( EEC ) No 3640/85 of 20 December 1985 on
      Commission      forthwith       of   such   measures,    the      the promotion, by financial support, of demonstration
      Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations           projects and industrial pilot projects in the energy field ( 1 ),
      under the abovementioned provisions,                               the Commission concluded with the SIVU du Pays d'Ac
                                                                         ceuil de la Vallee du Lot and Sari Hydro-Realisations,
                                                                         acting jointly and severally, a contract providing for the
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .                       grant of financial support by the Community for the


title: Case T-9/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Air Canada v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Air Canada v Commission
   (Case T-9/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 048/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Air Canada (Quebec, Canada) (represented by: S. Kim, H. Bignall, J. Pheasant and T. Capel, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Noë and N. von Lingen, subsequently by J. Bourke and S. Noë, and lastly by A. Dawes and H. Leupold, acting as Agents, and by G. Peretz, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Air Canada;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Air Canada.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Case C-19/14: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Duisburg — Germany) — Ana-Maria Talasca, Angelina Marita Talasca v Stadt Kevelaer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Absence of sufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/32

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Duisburg — Germany) — Ana-Maria Talasca, Angelina Marita Talasca v Stadt Kevelaer
   (Case C-19/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Absence of sufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility))
   2014/C 315/51
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Sozialgericht Duisburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ana-Maria Talasca, Angelina Marita Talasca

      Defendant: Stadt Kevelaer

      Operative part of the order

   The request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Duisburg (Germany), made by decision of 17 December 2013, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case F-79/14: Action brought on 7 August 2014  — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/31

         Action brought on 7 August 2014 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-79/14)
   2014/C 388/40
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Lamamra and K. Evora, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to withdraw the benefit of the household allowance, with retroactive effect, after the applicant’s transfer to another institution and to limit the amount of the installation allowance to one month instead of two.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Parliament of 5 December 2013;

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Parliament of 8 May 2014, rejecting his claim;

               —

               Order the Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case F-20/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 19 December 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Social security — Sickness insurance — Repayment of medical expenses — Express rejection of the application)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/61

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 19 December 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-20/07) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Social security - Sickness insurance - Repayment of medical expenses - Express rejection of the application)
   (2008/C 51/114)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, application for annulment of a number of Commission decisions refusing to grant the applicant 100 % reimbursement of his medical expenses and, second, a claim for damages
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The Civil Service Tribunal declines jurisdiction in Case F-20/07 Marcuccio v Commission in order that the Court of First Instance of the European Communities may hear and determine that case.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 22.9.2007, p. 19.


               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/3

         Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Court
   2010/C 317/06
   At its meeting on 12 October 2010, the Court drew up the list referred to in Article 11b(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the purposes of determining the composition of the Grand Chamber as follows:

               Mr Rosas

               Mr Jarašiūnas

               Ms Silva de Lapuerta

               Ms Prechal

               Sir Konrad Schiemann

               Ms Berger

               Mr Juhász

               Mr Šváby

               Mr Arestis

               Mr Safjan

               Mr Borg Barthet

               Mr Kasel

               Mr Ilešič

               Ms Toader

               Mr Malenovský

               Mr Arabadjiev

               Mr Lõhmus

               Mr von Danwitz

               Mr Levits

               Ms Lindh

               Mr Ó Caoimh

               Mr Bay Larsen

         At its meeting on 12 October 2010, the Court drew up the list referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the purposes of determining the composition of the Fourth Chamber of five Judges as follows:

      Fourth Chamber

               Sir Konrad Schiemann

               Mr Jarašiūnas

               Mr Bay Larsen

               Ms Prechal

               Ms Toader

         At its meeting on 12 October 2010, the Court drew up the lists referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the purposes of determining the composition of the Chambers of three Judges as follows:

      Fifth Chamber

               Mr Borg Barthet

               Mr Ilešič

               Mr Levits

               Mr Safjan

               Ms Berger

      Sixth Chamber

               Mr Rosas

               Mr Lõhmus

               Mr Ó Caoimh

               Ms Lindh

      Seventh Chamber

               Ms Silva de Lapuerta

               Mr Juhász

               Mr Arestis

               Mr Malenovský

               Mr von Danwitz

      Eighth Chamber

               Mr Bay Larsen

               Ms Toader

               Ms Prechal

               Mr Jarašiūnas


title: Case C-191/01 P: Appeal brought on 20 April 2001 by Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-193/99 between Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company and Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 200/50               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.7.2001
tungssenat Salzburg (Independent Administrative Chamber for              European Communities in case T-193/99 between Wm.
Salzburg) of 25 April 2001 which was received at the Court               Wrigley Jr. Company and Office for Harmonization in the
Registry on 30 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the               Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), was brought before
case of Francisco Javier Gonzales Moreno on the following                the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 April
questions:                                                               2001 by Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
                                                                         (Trade Marks and Designs), represented by Virginia Melgar and
1.     Do Articles 28 and 30 EC, Council Directive 76/768/EEC            Susanna Laitinen, acting as Agents.
      of 27 July 1976 (1) on the approximation of the laws of
      the Member States relating to cosmetic products, as
      amended by Council Directive 88/667/EEC of 21 Decem-               The Appellant claims that the Court should:
      ber 1988 (2) and Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June
      1993 (3), in particular Article 6(3) thereof, together with        —     annul the judgment;
      Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 (4)
      relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations             —     order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings
      and administrative provisions of the Member States                       before the Court of First Instance and before this Court.
      concerning misleading advertising, in particular Articles 4
      and 7 thereof, preclude national legislation which pro-
      hibits, in connection with the marketing of cosmetic
      products, references to medical opinions, by the use, in           Pleas in law and main arguments
      particular, of the description ‘ophthalmologically tested’?
2.    Do Articles 28 and 30 EC, Council Directive 76/768/EEC             The Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade
      of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the            Marks and Designs) submits that:
      Member States relating to cosmetic products, as amended
      by Council Directive 88/667/EEC of 21 December 1988                —     The Court of First Instance erred in law in interpreting
      and Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, in                      Article 7(1)(c) CTMR to require that a term must be
      particular Article 6(3) thereof, and Council Directive                   ‘exclusively descriptive’ if it is to be excluded from
      84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 on the approxi-                          registration as a Community trade mark under that
      mation of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-                  provision and in holding that the term ‘Doublemint’ is
      visions of the Member States concerning misleading                       thus not excluded from registration.
      advertising, in particular Articles 4 and 7 thereof, preclude
      national legislation which permits the use of references
                                                                         —     The reasoning used to support the reversal of the refusal
      falling within the terms of Question 1 only after prior
                                                                               of the term ‘Doublemint’ is contradictory, founded on an
      authorisation by the competent Federal Minister?
                                                                               artificial analysis, and fails to regard commercial reality
                                                                               and the context in which the mark is to be used, which
                                                                               amounts to a reversible error of law because it constitutes
( 1) OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169.                                                    a manifest error of appreciation.
( 2) OJ 1988 L 382, p. 46.
( 3) OJ 1993 L 151 p. 32.
( 4) OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 333, 20.11.1999, p. 27.
Appeal brought on 20 April 2001 by Office for Harmo-
nization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the                 Action brought on 4 May 2001 by the Commission of the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                     European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark
European Communities in case T-193/99 (1) between Wm.
Wrigley Jr. Company and Office for Harmonization in the
          Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                (Case C-192/01)
                        (Case C-191/01 P)                                                          (2001/C 200/91)
                         (2001/C 200/90)
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice on 4 May 2001 by the Commission
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001              of the European Communities, represented by Hans Christian
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the              Støvlbæk, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-65/03: Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
5.4.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 83/13
Does national legislation (Decree-Law No 324 of 10 September               Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission
1998, unconverted, and Article 43(7) of Law No 448 of                      of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
23 December 1998) which, by setting aside the ordinary law                                              Belgium
that permits continuation of the employment relationship,
allows an undertaking (Ferrovie dello Stato SpA) to dismiss its
older employees — thereby creating a situation in which the
undertaking can save on labour costs (salaries and insurance                                        (Case C-65/03)
obligations), with an immediate resulting burden to the State
in the form of reduced contribution revenue and the payment
of pensions to dismissed workers — fall within the concept of
                                                                                (2003/C 83/23)
aid that is incompatible with the common market within the
meaning of Article 87 of the Treaty?
                                                                           An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                           before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                           14 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission                       Communities, represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                     an address for service in Luxembourg.
                             Netherlands
                           (Case C-63/03)
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (2003/C 83/22)
                                                                           —     declare that, by not adopting the measures necessary to
                                                                                ensure that holders of secondary education qualifications
                                                                                obtained in the other Member States may be admitted
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought                     to higher education organised by the Belgian French-
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       speaking Community on the same terms as holders of
14 February 2003 by the Commission of the European                               the CESS (certificat d’enseignement secondaire supérieur),
Communities, represented by W. Wils, acting as Agent.                            the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under Articles 12, 149 and 150 EC.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
1.     Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
       regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
       comply with Directive 98/71/EC ( 1) of the European
       Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on
       the legal protection of designs, or in any event by failing
       to forward those provisions to the Commission, the                  Pleas in law and main arguments
       Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under that directive;
2.     Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.              The Belgian authorities in question require holders of diplomas
                                                                           and qualifications attesting to the completion of secondary
                                                                           studies in other Member States (with the exception of the
                                                                           Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg), who are nationals of other
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Member States and who wish to be admitted to higher
                                                                           education in Belgium, to sit and pass an aptitude test unless,
                                                                           by way of an additional requirement, they are able to
The period within which the directive had to be transposed                 demonstrate that they have been granted admission in their
expired on 28 October 2001.                                                country of origin to the desired university faculty without an
                                                                           entrance examination or other form of restriction of admission.
                                                                           The Commission considers that this practice is discriminatory
( 1) Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council      and contrary to the articles cited in the above claims.
     of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs (OJ 1998
     L 289, p. 28).


title: Case T-283/03: Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Lucía Recalde Langarica against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 239/26                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           4.10.2003
The applicant argues in this connection that, in this case, the            The applicant states in that regard that the contested decision
facts of the dispute, which dates back to 1995, are brought                replaces another decision which the Court of First Instance
before the Community court for a third time, yet the Com-                  of the European Communities annulled by judgment of
mission has still not properly completed what it ought to have             20 September 2001 (1).
done in 1995, namely to conduct an assessment of whether
ascertained variations from the object, structure and purpose
of the original subsidised project are in conformity.                      In support of here claims, the applicant puts forward the
                                                                           following pleas:
( 1) ECR I-6831.
( 2) Case T-241/00 ECR II-1251.                                            —      Breach of the rights of defence, given the absence of a
                                                                                complete file.
                                                                           —      Manifest error in the assessment of the facts and, in
                                                                                particular, in the assessment of the place of main
                                                                                occupation or habitual residence during the reference
                                                                                period. In the alternative, the applicant claims that the
                                                                                Commission ignored the fact that the applicant’s stay in
Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Lucía Recalde                                  Brussels never exceeded the reference period and, further
Langarica against Commission of the European Com-                                 in the alternative, that it did not apply the ‘work done for
                              munities                                            another State’ exception in Article 4 of Annex VII to the
                                                                                Staff Regulations.
                          (Case T-283/03)
                                                                           (1 ) Case T-344/99 Recalde Langarica v Commission [2001] ECR-SC
                                                                                IA-183; II-833).
                          (2003/C 239/47)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 August 2003 by Lucía Recalde                     Action brought on 18 August 2003 by S.I.M. SA. srl
Langarica, residing in Brussels, represented by D. Ramón                      against the Commission of the European Communities
García-Gallardo and M. Dolores Domínguez Pérez, lawyers.
                                                                                (Case T-287/03)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2003/C 239/48)
—      annul the Decision of 8 May 2003 rejecting the applicant’s
       complaint seeking formal and definitive annulment of
       the decision withdrawing her entitlement under the                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
       Staff Regulations to the expatriation allowance and
       confirmation of her entitlement to that allowance and
       also to other related allowances; and
—      order the defendant to pay all the costs.                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 18 August 2003 by S.I.M. SA. srl,
                                                                           represented by M.A. Calabrese.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The present action is brought against the decision whereby the
appointing authority rejected the applicant’s complaint seeking            —      annul the Commission’s letter of 30 April 2002 D/52107,
formal and definitive annulment of the decision refusing her                      COMP/G1/D(02)400 PI/cpb, of which the applicant has
entitlement under the Staff Regulations to the expatriation                       not had sight, whereby the Commission consulted the
allowance and confirmation of her entitlement to that allow-                      Italian authorities, inviting them to express their assent
ance, together with other related allowances, such as, specifi-                   or dissent to the release to a party other than the applicant
cally, the allowance for the costs of installation at her present                 of the documents of which the applicant has requested
place of work.                                                                    copies;


title: Case T-99/15: Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Sfera Joven v OHIM — Las banderas del Mediterráneo (NOOSFERA)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/31

         Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Sfera Joven v OHIM — Las banderas del Mediterráneo (NOOSFERA)
   (Case T-99/15)
   (2015/C 155/36)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Sfera Joven, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Las banderas del Mediterráneo, SL (Cox, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘NOOSFERA’ — Application for registration No 11 233 681

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 December 2014 in Case R 158/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 12 December 2014 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 158/2014-4 in so far as in rejecting the opponent’s appeal, it confirmed the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting Opposition B 2 160 557 and granting in full Community trade mark No 11 233 681 ‘NOOSFERA’ (word mark);

               —

               order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-7/13: Action brought on 7 January 2013 — ADEAS v Commission

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/22

         Action brought on 7 January 2013 — ADEAS v Commission
   (Case T-7/13)
   2013/C 79/40
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Association pour la Défense de l’Épargne et de l’Actionnariat des Salariés de France Télécom-Orange (Paris, France) (represented by: A.-L. Lefort des Ylouses and A.-S. Gay, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare admissible the ADEAS’s application;

               —

               rule that the decision is annulled;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its application, the applicant is seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 9403 final of 20 December 2011, declaring compatible with the internal market, under certain conditions, the aid implemented by the French Republic in favour of France Télécom concerning the reform of the method of financing the pensions of public-service employees working for France Télécom (State aid No C 25/2008 (ex NN 23/2008)). (1)

   In support of the action, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law which are essentially similar or identical to those put forward in Case T-2/13 CFE-CGC France Télécom-Orange v Commission.

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 279, p. 1.


title: Case C-381/09: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Gennaro Curia v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate (Article 104(3), paragraph 1 of the Rules of Procedure — Sixth VAT Directive — Scope — VAT exemptions — Article 13B(d)(1) — Grant, negotiation and management of credit — Exorbitant lending activities — Activity unlawful under national law)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/16

      Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Gennaro Curia v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate
      (Case C-381/09) (1)

      (Article 104(3), paragraph 1 of the Rules of Procedure - Sixth VAT Directive - Scope - VAT exemptions - Article 13B(d)(1) - Grant, negotiation and management of credit - Exorbitant lending activities - Activity unlawful under national law)
      (2010/C 288/26)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Gennaro Curia

         Defendant: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemptions — Transactions consisting in the grant, negotiation and management of credit — Exorbitant lending activities, unlawful activity according to national law

         Operative part

      Although exorbitant lending is a criminal offence under the national criminal code it falls, despite the fact that it is unlawful, within the scope of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment. Article 13B(d)(1) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State cannot impose value added tax on that activity when the corresponding lawful activity of money lending at rates of interest that are not excessive is exempt from VAT.

         (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Appeal brought by Transacciones Marítimas SA (Tramasa), Makupesca SA and Recursos Marinos SA against the order made by the President of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 16 January 1995 in Joined Cases T-231/94 R, T-232/94 R and T-234/94 R between Transacciones Marítimas SA (Tramasa), Makupesca SA and Recursos Marinos SA and Commission of the European Communities (Case C-12/95 P)

text:
 13 . 5 . 95         IEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 119/3
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello di
court against Mostafa Saddik on the interpretation of                 Ancona, Sezione Civile, by order of that court of 19 October
Articles 3 , 9, 30, 37, 85 , 86, 87, 88 and 90 of the EC Treaty       1994 in the case of Amministrazione delle Finanze dello
— the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,                                         Stato v. Foods Import srl
President, F. A. Schockweiler, P.J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann                                      (Case C-38/95 )
and P. Jann (Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini,
C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray,                                         ( 95/C 119/06 )
D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur), G. Hirsch
and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
23 March 1995 in which it ordered :
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Civil Section of
                                                                      the Corte di Appello ( Court of Appeal ), Ancona, of
                                                                      19 October 1994, which was received at the Court Registry
the reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the               on 16 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Pretura Circondariale, Rome by order of 24 November                   Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Foods Import
1993 is inadmissible.                                                 srl on the following questions :
(!) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                      1 . Is the list given in Council Regulation ( EEC ) No
                                                                            3796/81 of 29 December 1981 ( l ) ( and repeated in
                                                                            Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3333/83 of 4 November
                                                                            1983 ( 2 ), Annex VI to which reproduces Chapter 3 of
                                                                            the Common Customs Tariff in which cod appears
                                                                            under heading No 03.02 A.I and fillets of cod under
                                                                            heading No 03.02 A.II, supplemented by the mention
                                                                             'Gadus morrhua, Boreogadus saida, Gadus ogac ',
                                                                            exhaustive or illustrative and, accordingly, is the dried
                                                                            cod scientifically classified as 'Molva ' covered by that
Appeal brought by Transacciones Maritimas SA (Tramasa),                     list ?
Makupesca SA and Recursos Marinos SA against the order
made by the President of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 January 1995 in Joined Cases
T-231/94 R, T-232/94 R and T-234/94 R between                         2. If the Court holds that list to be exhaustive, does
Transacciones Maritimas SA (Tramasa ), Makupesca SA                         Article 20 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3796/81 of
and Recursos Marinos SA and Commission of the European                      29 December 1981 , suspending certain Common
                            Communities                                     Customs Tariff duties, apply only to the three subspecies
                        ( Case C-12/95 P)                                   of cod referred to in Question 1 ('Gadus morrhua,
                                                                            Boreogadus saida, Gadus ogac ') to the exclusion of
                           ( 95/C 119/05 )
                                                                            other subspecies such as 'Molva '}
An appeal against the order made by the President of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                3 . In any event, must Article 5 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation
16 January 1995 in Joined Cases T-231/94 R, T-232/94 R                      ( EEC ) No 1697/79 (3 ) of 24 July 1979 , giving debtors
and T-234/94 R between Transacciones Maritimas SA                           the right (see the Court's judgment in Case 314/85
(Tramasa ), Makupesca SA and Recursos Marinos SA and                        Foto-Frost v. Hauptzollamt Liibeck-Ost [ 1987]
Commission of the European Communities was brought                          ECR 4199 ) to benefit from the fact that the competent
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities by                  authorities may refrain from taking action for the
Transacciones Maritimas SA (Tramasa ), Makupesca SA and                     post-clearance recovery of duties, be applied also in the
Recursos Marinos SA, represented by Santiago Martinez                       present case in which the customs authorities failed to
Lage, Rafael Allendesalazar Corcho and Javier Vfas Alonso,                  collect the relevant duties on account of an error, having
of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in                           regard also to the conduct of the alleged debtor who had
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand                          observed all the provisions laid down by the rules in
Rue .                                                                       force as far as his customs declaration was concerned ?
By order of the President of the Court of Justice of the
European Communities of 7 March 1995, the appeal has                  f 1 ) OJ No L 379 , 31 . 12 . 1981 , p . 1 .
                                                                      (2 ) OJ No L 313 , 14 . 11 . 1983 , p . 1 .
been dismissed and the appellants have been ordered to pay            (3 ) OJ No L 197, 3 . 8 . 1979, p. 1 .       '
the costs in their entirety.


title: Case T-234/12: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2015 — Amitié v Commission (Arbitration clause — Grant — Financial aid — Suspension of payment — Claim for reimbursement of the declared costs — Damages — Interest on late payment — Debit note — Contractual liability — Counterclaim)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2015 — Amitié v Commission
   (Case T-234/12) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Grant - Financial aid - Suspension of payment - Claim for reimbursement of the declared costs - Damages - Interest on late payment - Debit note - Contractual liability - Counterclaim))
   (2015/C 346/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Amitié Srl (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: D. Bogaert, M. Picat and C. Siciliano, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Moro and S. Delaude, acting as Agents, and initially by R. Van der Hout and A. Krämer, and subsequently by R. Van der Hout and A. Köhler, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application under Article 272 TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 340 TFEU for, in the first place, a declaration (i) that the amounts received by the applicant under a grant agreement and two financial aid agreements concluded between the applicant and the European Community, represented by the Commission, and also the financial penalty and interest on late payment, reimbursement or payment of which the Commission claims from the applicant on the basis of the final findings of a financial audit, are not payable or, at least, not payable in full; (ii) that the Commission’s right to extrapolate the final audit findings to another grant agreement is time-barred; and (iii) that the Commission engaged the contractual liability of the European Union by suspending, on the basis of the preliminary financial audit findings, payment of the amounts payable to the applicant under two other grant agreements; and, in the second place, an order that the Commission pay to the applicant (i) the amounts remaining payable to it under the grant agreements performance of which was suspended and under another financial aid agreement, together with late payment interest; and (ii) damages to make good the loss suffered by the applicant owing to the abusive exercise by the Commission of the rights which it derived from the financial aid or grant agreements subject to the financial audit and the grant agreements the performance of which was suspended, following that audit.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no need to give a ruling on the head of claim of Amitié Srl requesting the Court to take note of the fact that the European Commission abandoned its challenge to the amounts which remained payable to the applicant for the implementation of the grant agreements references ECP-2007-DILI-517005, relating to the Athena (Access to cultural heritage networks across Europe) action, and ECP-2008-DILI-538025, relating to the Judaica Europeana (Jewish urban digital European integrated cultural archive) action;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Amitié to pay to the Commission (i) a sum of EUR 50 458,23, with interest on late payment at the rate of 4,5 % per annum from 6 April 2012 and until full payment of that sum, (ii) a sum of EUR 261 947,36, with interest on late payment at the rate of 4,25 % per annum from 28 December 2012 and until full payment of that sum, (iii) a sum of EUR 358 712,35, with interest on late payment at the rate of 4,5 % per annum from 8 May 2012 and until full payment of that sum, and (iv) a sum of EUR 5 045,82, with interest on late payment at the rate of 4,5 % per annum from 23 June 2012 and until full payment of that sum;

               4.

               Orders Amitié to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs of the Commission;

               5.

               Orders the Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Case T-155/13: Action brought on 15 March 2013 — Zanjani v Council

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/24

         Action brought on 15 March 2013 — Zanjani v Council
   (Case T-155/13)
   2013/C 141/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Babak Zanjani (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: L. Defalque and C. Malherbe, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul paragraph I.I.1 (under the heading ‘Person’) of the Annex to Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71);

               —

               Annul paragraph I.I.1 (under the heading ‘Person’) of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55);

               —

               Declare Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran inapplicable in so far as Article 19(1)(b) and (c) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) is applied to the applicant, and declare that the applicant is not concerned by the restrictive measures it provides; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs for this application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council adopted the disputed restrictive measures provided for in Article 19(1)(b) and (c) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP in absence of any legal provisions/grounds.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the obligation to state reasons. The statement of reasons of the disputed decision and resolution is vague and general and does not indicate the specific and actual reasons why, in the exercise of its broad discretion, the Council considered that the applicant should be subject to the disputed restrictive measures.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated the applicant’s rights of defence, right to a fair hearing and right to effective judicial protection. The applicant has neither been informed nor notified of any possible evidence adduced against him to justify the measure adversely affecting him. The Council neither granted the applicant access to its file nor provided him with the requested documents (including precise and personalised information justifying the disputed restrictive measures) nor disclosed to him the possible evidence adduced against him. The applicant was denied to be heard by the Council as he expressly requested it. The abovementioned violation of the applicant’s rights of defence — notably the failure to inform the applicant of the evidence adduced against him — results in a violation of the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment when adopting the restrictive measures against the applicant. The reasons relied on by the Council against the applicant do not constitute an adequate statement of reasons. Moreover, the Council has produced neither evidence nor information to establish the reasons it invoked to justify the disputed restrictive measures, which are based on mere allegations.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the disputed restrictive measures are vitiated and tainted with illegality due to the defects in the Council’s assessment prior their adoption. The Council did not carry out a genuine assessment of the circumstances of the case, but it has restricted itself to following the UNSC’s recommendations and adopting the proposals submitted by the Member States.


title: Case C-342/16 P: Appeal brought on 17 June 2016 by Novomatic AG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 April 2016 in Case T-326/14: Novomatic v EUIPO — Granini France (HOT JOKER)

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/2

         Appeal brought on 17 June 2016 by Novomatic AG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 April 2016 in Case T-326/14: Novomatic v EUIPO — Granini France (HOT JOKER)
   (Case C-342/16 P)
   (2017/C 095/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Novomatic AG (represented by: W. Mosing, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Granini France
   By order of 6 December 2016 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.