title: Judgment of the Court of 20 March 2002 in Case T-16/99, Lögstör Rör (Deutschland) GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Boycott — Access to the file — Fine — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Non-retroactivity — Legitimate expectations)

text:
C 156/14                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     29.6.2002
4.    Orders the Commission to bear 20 % of its own costs, including                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.
                                                                                of 20 March 2002
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                            in Case T-16/99, Lögstör Rör (Deutschland) GmbH v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes —
                                                                            Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Boycott
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     — Access to the file — Fine — Guidelines on the method of
                                                                            setting fines — Non-retroactivity — Legitimate expec-
                                                                                tations)
                          of 20 March 2002
in Case T-15/99, Brugg Rohrsysteme GmbH v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)                                                     (2002/C 156/26)
(Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes —
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Boycott                                      (Language of the case: German)
— fine — Guidelines on setting fines — Non-retroactivity
                    — Legitimate expectation)
                           (2002/C 156/25)
                   (Language of the case: German)                           In Case T-16/99, Lögstör Rör (Deutschland) GmbH, established
                                                                            in Fulda (Germany), represented by H.-J. Hellmann and T. Näg-
                                                                            ele, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Mölls
In Case T-15/99, Brugg Rohrsysteme GmbH, established in                     and E. Gippini Fournier) — application for, primarily, annul-
Wunstorf (Germany), represented by T. Jestaedt, H.-C. Salger                ment of Commission Decision 1999/60/EC of 21 October
and M. Sura, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-                 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities                       Treaty (Case No IV/35.691/E-4: — Pre-Insulated Pipe Cartel)
(Agents: W. Mölls and É. Gippini Fournier) — application for               (OJ 1999 L 24, p. 1) or, in the alternative, reduction of the fine
annulment of Commission Decision 1999/60/EC of 21 Octo-                     imposed on the applicant by that decision — the Court of
ber 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC                First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi,
Treaty (Case No IV/35.691/E-4: — Pre-Insulated Pipe Cartel)                 President, V. Tiili, and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; B. Pastor,
(OJ 1999 L 24, p. 1) or, in the alternative, for reduction of the           Principle Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
fine imposed on the applicant by that decision — the Court of               on 20 March 2002, in which it:
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi,
President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; G. Herzig,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
20 March 2002, in which it:                                                 1.     Dismisses the application;
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                            2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.


title: Case T-161/01: Action brought on 12 July 2001 by Liam O'Bradaigh against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 289/28              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.10.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the decision approving the applicant’s staff report
      for the period 1995-1997;                                          In support of his action, the applicant pleads breach of
                                                                         essential procedural requirements, breach of the principle of
                                                                         equal treatment and breach of the rules governing the work of
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              the jury. The applicant argues that neither the composition of
                                                                         the jury nor the conduct of the oral tests for competition
                                                                         COM/TB/99 complied with procedural requirements as defined
                                                                         in case-law. He also maintains that the reasons given for the
                                                                         contested decision do not meet the requisite legal standard.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his action, the applicant pleads:
—     infringement of Article 6 of the general implementing
      provisions relating to Article 43 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                         Action brought on 17 July 2001 by Hans Mc Auley against
—     breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-                                Council of the European Union
      discrimination and infringement of the rights of the
      defence;
                                                                                (Case T-165/01)
—     breach of the principle of legitimate expectations;
                                                                                (2001/C 289/67)
—     manifest error of assessment and incoherence.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against Council of the European Union was brought
                                                                         before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         on 17 July 2001 by Hans Mc Auley, residing in Wezembeek-
                                                                         Oppem (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël Louis et Véronique
                                                                         Peere, lawyers.
Action brought on 12 July 2001 by Liam O’Bradaigh
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (Case T-161/01)
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the Commission of 15 September
                                                                               2000 on the drawing up the final staff report for the
                        (2001/C 289/66)                                        period 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;
                   (Language of the case: French)                        —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Pleas in law and main arguments
European Communities on 12 July 2001 by Liam O’Bradaigh,
residing in Mechelen, Belgium, represented by Jean-Noël Louis            The applicant takes the view that the final staff report was
and Véronique Peere, Lawyers, with an address for service in             drawn up in breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
Luxembourg.                                                              reasons and of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as it:
                                                                         —     awards standardised, harmonised marks;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     contains serious accusations which are neither substan-
—     annul the decision of the jury in competition COM-                       tiated, objective nor specific;
      T/OB/99 to award him in the oral tests a mark lower than
      the pass mark and to exclude him from the reserve list;            —     refers to conduct which has not been proven.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-538/15: Action brought on 17 September 2015 — Regent University v OHIM — Regent’s College (REGENT UNIVERSITY)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/42

         Action brought on 17 September 2015 — Regent University v OHIM — Regent’s College (REGENT UNIVERSITY)
   (Case T-538/15)
   (2015/C 371/43)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Regent University (Virginia Beach, United States) (represented by: D. Wilkinson, Solicitor and E. Himsworth, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Regent’s College (London, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘REGENT UNIVERSITY’ — Community trade mark registration No 4 711 594

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 July 2015 in Case R 1859/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               remit the matter for further consideration by the Board;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board;

               —

               order the cancellation applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board, in the event that the cancellation applicant becomes an intervening party in these proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringements of Article 53(1) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-238/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 October 2007 — Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Three-dimensional mark — Shape of a plastic bottle — Refusal to register — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Earlier national trade mark — Paris Convention — TRIPs Agreement — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/16

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 October 2007 — Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-238/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Three-dimensional mark - Shape of a plastic bottle - Refusal to register - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Earlier national trade mark - Paris Convention - TRIPs Agreement - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2007/C 315/26)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG (represented by: R. and H. Kunz-Hallstein, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2006 in Case T-129/04 Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG v OHIM, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of a decision refusing registration of a three-dimensional mark for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32 in the shape of a plastic bottle — Distinctive character of the mark
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court of 12 September 2000 in Case C-358/97: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure to fulfil obligations — Article 4(5) of the Sixth VAT Directive — Access to roads on payment of a toll — Failure to levy VAT — Regulations (EEC, Euratom) Nos 1552/89 and 1553/89 — Own resources accruing from VAT)

text:
4.11.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 316/9
1.   Declares that by failing to charge value added tax on motorway         resources and interest for late payment as a consequence of
     tolls collected as consideration for the service supplied to users,    that infringement, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
     where that service is not provided by a body governed by public        under the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
     law within the meaning of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Council            Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),
     Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation               L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kap-
     of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —          teyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm,
     Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-             V. Skouris and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
     ment, and by failing to make available to the Commission of            D. Louterman-Hubeau and H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
     the European Communities as own resources accruing from                trators, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 Septemb-
     value added tax the amounts corresponding to the value added           er 2000, in which it:
     tax which should have been levied on those tolls together with
     interest for late payment, the French Republic has failed to fulfil    1.    Declares that by failing to subject to value added tax tolls
     its obligations under Articles 2 and 4 of that directive and                 collected for the use of toll roads and toll bridges as consideration
     under Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89 of                        for the service supplied to users, when that service is not provided
     29 May 1989 on the definitive uniform arrangements for the                   by a body governed by public law within the meaning of
     collection of own resources accruing from value added tax and                Article 4(5) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
     Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May                       17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
     1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the                        States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
     system of the Communities’ own resources;                                    added tax: uniform basis of assessment, and by failing to make
                                                                                available to the Commission of the European Communities as
2.   Orders the French Republic to bear the costs.                                own resources accruing from value added tax the amounts
                                                                                corresponding to the tax which should have been levied on those
                                                                                tolls together with interest for late payment, Ireland has failed
(1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
                                                                                to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 4 of that directive
                                                                                and under Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89
                                                                                of 29 May 1989 on the definitive uniform arrangements for
                                                                                the collection of own resources accruing from value added tax
                                                                                and Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of
                                                                                29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom
                                                                                on the system of the Communities’ own resources.
                                                                            2.    Orders Ireland to bear the costs.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            (1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.
                       of 12 September 2000
in Case C-358/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                           ties v Ireland (1)
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Article 4(5) of the Sixth VAT                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Directive — Access to roads on payment of a toll — Failure to
levy VAT — Regulations (EEC, Euratom) Nos 1552/89 and
       1553/89 — Own resources accruing from VAT)                                                   of 12 September 2000
                          (2000/C 316/16)                                   in Case C-359/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland (1)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            (Failure to fulfil obligations — Article 4(5) of the Sixth VAT
                                                                            Directive — Access to roads on payment of a toll — Failure to
In Case C-358/97: Commission of the European Communities                    levy VAT — Regulations (EEC, Euratom) Nos 1552/89 and
(Agents: H. Michard and B. Doherty) v Ireland (Agent: M.A.                         1553/89 — Own resources accruing from VAT)
Buckley, assisted by D. Sherlock, T. McCann and D. Moloney)
— application for a declaration that by not subjecting tolls for                                        (2000/C 316/17)
the use of toll roads and toll bridges in Ireland to value added
tax, contrary to Articles 2 and 4(1), (2) and (5) of the
Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
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), and by failing to                In Case C-359/97: Commission of the European Communities
make available to the Commission the amounts of own                         (Agents: H. Michard and B. Doherty) v United Kingdom of


title: Case T-245/16: Action brought on 13 May 2016 – Yanukovych v Council

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/50

         Action brought on 13 May 2016 – Yanukovych v Council
   (Case T-245/16)
   (2016/C 243/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (Donetsk, Ukraine) (represented by: T. Beazley, QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 76) insofar as it applies to the applicant;

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 1), on the basis that it fails to revoke the Regulation No 208/2014, insofar as it applies to the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council of the European Union (‘the Council’) lacked a proper legal basis for the contested measures. Arguments in support of this and subsequent pleas, include the following. The conditions for the Council relying on Article 29 TEU were not satisfied by the contested measures. Those contested measures were inconsistent with the objectives expressly invoked by the Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 (rule of law and respect for human rights in Ukraine). Indeed, the contested measures undermine the rule of law and human rights by supporting a regime which does not have a history of human rights compliance or compliance with the rule of law. No reliance can properly be placed by the Council on decisions of Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office or Courts, including because they are neither independent nor impartial, and are subject to political interference by the current regime in Ukraine. The presumption of innocence, to which the applicant is entitled, has been repeatedly violated by the Ukraine authorities.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council misused its powers. The Council’s actual purpose in implementing the contested measures was and is to curry favour with the current regime in Ukraine, and to maximise its political influence with that regime, which are not proper uses of the powers concerned.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to state proper or sufficient reasons, merely relying on formulaic and imprecise statements.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant does not fulfil the stated criteria for a person to be listed at the relevant time. The material relied on by the Council was not a sufficiently solid factual basis for the applicant’s listing.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in including the applicant in the contested measures. The Council did not have concrete, factually reliable and consistent evidence to justify the contested measures, and had not subjected the limited material that it did have to a sufficiently rigorous review.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s defence rights have been breached and/or that he has been denied effective judicial protection. Amongst other things, the Council has failed adequately to consult with the applicant prior to the contested measures, and the applicant has not been afforded a proper or fair opportunity either to correct errors or to produce relevant information.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, have been breached.


title: Case T-5/09: Order of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — Lind v Commission (Action for damages — Public health implications of the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland) — Directive 96/29/Euratom — Commission’s failure to adopt measures against a Member State — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/35

         Order of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — Lind v Commission
   (Case T-5/09) (1)

   (Action for damages - Public health implications of the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland) - Directive 96/29/Euratom - Commission’s failure to adopt measures against a Member State - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2010/C 134/59
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Brigit Lind (Greve, Denmark) (represented by: I. Anderson, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White and M. Patakia, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for compensation for damage suffered as a result of the Commission’s alleged failure to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the Kingdom of Denmark adopted the legislative and administrative provisions enabling it to comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1) and applied those provisions to workers involved in the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland).

      Operative part of the order

   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Brigit Lind to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case C-208/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof order of that court of 30 March 2000 in the case of Überseering BV against NCC Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH

text:
C 233/16                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       12.8.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-                 2.    If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:
hof order of that court of 30 March 2000 in the case                            can the first indent of the third subparagraph of Artic-
of Überseering BV against NCC Nordic Construction                              le 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 (1) be interpreted as
               Company Baumanagement GmbH                                       meaning that false information provided in good faith by
                                                                                the refund applicant on the basis of inaccurate data
                          (Case C-208/00)                                       supplied by the manufacturer constitutes in principle a
                                                                                case of force majeure where the applicant could not
                                                                                establish that it was false or could do so only by means
                          (2000/C 233/29)                                       of cheeks at the undertaking in which the goods were
                                                                                manufactured?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) of 30 March 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 25 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling in                (1) OJ L 351 of 14.12.1987, p. 1.
the case of Überseering v NCC Nordic Construction Company
Baumanagement GmbH on the following questions:
1.    Are Articles 43 and 48 EC to be interpreted as meaning
      that it is contrary to the right to freedom of establishment
      of companies if the legal capacity and capacity to bring
      legal proceedings of a company validly incorporated
      under the law of one Member State are determined
      according to the law of another State to which the
      company has moved its actual centre of administration
      and the law of that second State no longer allows the
      company to bring legal proceedings there in respect of
      claims based on contract?                                           Action brought on 30 May 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
2.    If the Court’s answer to that question is yes:
      Does the right to freedom of establishment of companies                                      (Case C-216/00)
      (Articles 43 and 48 EC) mean that a company’s legal
      capacity and capacity to bring legal proceedings must be
      determined according to the law of the State where the
      company is incorporated?                                                                     (2000/C 233/31)
                                                                          An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 May
                                                                          2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser in
                                                                          its Legal Service, and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                   expert on secondment to its Legal Service, with an address for
hof by order of 4 April 2000 in the case of Käserei                       service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt                        Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                          Hamburg-Jonas
                          (Case C-210/00)                                 The Commission claims that the Court should:
                          (2000/C 233/30)
                                                                          —     declare that, by failing to enact and to notify to the
                                                                                Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
European Communities by order of 4 April 2000 by the                            comply fully with Article 3 of European Parliament
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court), which was received                     and Council Directive 97/52/EC (1) of 13 October 1997
at the Court Registry on 26 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling                  amending Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and
in the case of Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co.                         93/37/EEC concerning the coordination of procedures
KG v Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) Hamburg-Jonas                      for the award of public service contracts, public supply
on the following questions:                                                     contracts and public works contracts respectively, the
                                                                                Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
1.    Is Article 11(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 valid in                  the EC Treaty;
      so far as it provides for a penalty even where, through no
      fault of his own, an exporter has applied for an export
      refund exceeding that applicable?                                   —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case T-17/01: Action brought on 24 January 2001 by Georgios Rounis against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 95/20                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         24.3.2001
Action brought on 22 January 2001 by Stefano Benini                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          —     annul the decision taken by the appointing authority in
                          (Case T-15/01)
                                                                                its memorandum of 24 February 2000 to continue to
                                                                                transfer part of his remuneration but at a rate of only
                          (2001/C 95/39)                                        19 % of his net monthly salary, instead of 35 %;
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        —     annul the decision of the Heads of Administration
                                                                                No 102/84 approved by them at the 149th meeting of
                                                                                6 April 1984, inasmuch as it allows the appointing
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       authority to limit its transfer to 19 % in place of 35 %;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 January 2001 by Stefano Benini
represented by Bruno Nascimbene and Massimo Condinanzi,                   —     order the defendant to pay the applicant a provisional
Avvocati, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                            sum of EUR 5 000 in respect of damages to be assessed
                                                                                subsequently together with default interest, by way of
                                                                                damages for the financial injury caused to him;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul the decision of the Commission of 28 September                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      2000 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on
      28 March 2000 under No 169/2000;
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant, an official working for the Commission in
                                                                          Brussels, purchased residential property in London. The pur-
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as though                chase was partly financed by a mortgage in the United
in Case T-11/01 Maschetti v Commission (1).                               Kingdom repayable on a monthly basis over 10 years.
(1) Not yet published in the OJ.                                          Accordingly, the applicant requested a transfer to the United
                                                                          Kingdom of 35 % of his net monthly salary under Article 17(2)
                                                                          of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.
                                                                          The Commission limited the transfer to a ceiling of 19 % on
                                                                          the ground that such a ceiling was applicable, by analogy,
                                                                          pursuant to Decision No 102/84 of the Heads of Adminis-
                                                                          tration. The applicant claims that that limitation is unlawful
Action brought on 24 January 2001 by Georgios Rounis
    against Commission of the European Communities                        and that it does not comply with either the Staff Regulations
                                                                          or the joint rules fixing the detailed rules relating to the transfer
                                                                          of part of the salary.
                          (Case T-17/01)
                          (2001/C 95/40)                                  The applicant also claims that the appointing authority
                                                                          infringed Articles 62 and 63 of the Staff Regulations and that
                                                                          its decision, based on grounds which are both legally and
                   (Language of the case: French)                         factually incorrect, discriminates against the applicant by
                                                                          comparison with other officials in the same situation.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 January 2001 by Georgios
Rounis, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot,
avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-298/13: Order of the President of the Court of 31 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans — France) — Facet SA, BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA v Saïda Bouchelaghem, Nathalie Cousin, Clémentine Benoni, Hili Aziz, Mohamed Zouhir, Jean Morel, Jalid Anissa, Marine Bourreau, Anthony Cartier, Patrick Rousselière, Karine Lenfant

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/33

         Order of the President of the Court of 31 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans — France) — Facet SA, BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA v Saïda Bouchelaghem, Nathalie Cousin, Clémentine Benoni, Hili Aziz, Mohamed Zouhir, Jean Morel, Jalid Anissa, Marine Bourreau, Anthony Cartier, Patrick Rousselière, Karine Lenfant
   (Case C-298/13) (1)

   2014/C 175/43
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 215, 27. 7. 2013.


21.6.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 146/35
—       Reliability of the on-the-spot checks, in particular                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
        adequate measurement of agricultural land. In its third             Tolmezzo by order of that Court of 16 April 2003 in the
        plea in law, Germany rebuts the Commission’s complaint              case of Azienda Agricola Schnabl Rosa against A.G.E.A.
        that Brandenburg did not adequately measure land in the                                   and COSPALAT F.V.G.
        course of on-the-spot checks, which constitutes a breach
        of Article 6(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 ( 3). That                                     (Case C-185/03)
        complaint is based, it submits, on factually and legally
        incorrect premisses.                                                                          (2003/C 146/57)
—       Adequate expansion of the sample coverage of on-the-
        spot checks. In its fourth plea in law, Germany deals with          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        the complaint that Brandenburg did not adequately                   European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Tolmezzo
        expand the required sample coverage of the on-the-spot              (Tolmezzo District Court) of 16 April 2003, received at the
        checks within the holdings visited.                                 Court Registry on 5 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                            case of Azienda Agricola Schnabl Rosa against A.G.E.A. and
                                                                            COSPALAT F.V.G. on the following question:
—       The representative yields for non-food crops on set-aside
        land were assessed at a sufficiently high level. In its fifth       Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1) of 31 March
        plea in law, Germany demonstrates that the Commission’s
                                                                            1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 ( 2) of
        complaint — that the representative yields of renewable             28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the
        raw materials were assessed at too low a level — is                 additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of
        unjustified.
                                                                            an administrative penalty with the result that producers are
                                                                            liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been
—       Lack of precision concerning the financial years to which           exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?
        expenditure is imputed. In its sixth plea in law, the level
        of expenditure imputed by the decision is contested. The            (1 ) OJ L 90 of 1.4.1984, p. 10.
        Commission’s decision is in part imprecise and is invalid           (2 ) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
        in so far as its operative part and the statements in the
        Annex concerning an amount of EUR 12 927 107 are
        inconsiystent. In the 1999 and 2000 financial years, the
        Land of Brandenburg incurred expenditure for crop years
        1999 and 2000 of EUR 270 387 968. Applying the flat
        rate of 5 % imposed by the Commission, which is                             Removal from the register of Case C-302/01 ( 1)
        being contested, that results in an imputed amount of
        EUR 13 519 398. However, an amount of
                                                                                (2003/C 146/58)
        EUR 262 446 505 was imputed. Consequently an
        amount of EUR 12 927 107 was wrongly imputed.
                                                                            By order of 6 February 2003 the President of the Court of
—       Incorrect risk assessment. Finally, in its seventh plea in          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
        law, it is argued that the declared flat-rate imputation of         from the register of Case C-302/01: Commission of the
        risk of 5 % is defective simply because no systematic               European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
        administrative or checking errors were the subject of
        complaint in Brandenburg in the relevant period. More-
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 259 of 15.9.2001.
        over, the calculation of the alleged loss to the EAGGF was
        made using inappropriate methods and arrived at in
        breach of Article 10 EC.
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the                     Removal from the register of Case C-86/02 (1)
     financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160,
     p. 103).                                                                                (2003/C 146/59)
( 2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying
     down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation
     (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the
     accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ 1995 L 158, p. 6).         By order of 7 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
( 3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December                  of the European Communities ordered the removal from
     1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated            the register of Case C-86/02: Commission of the European
     administration and control system for certain Community aid            Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
     schemes (OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36).
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.


title: Case C-410/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kantongerecht te Groningen by decision of 19 October 1999 in the case of Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Groningen and Challenger Trading Company Ltd, a company incorporated under foreign law

text:
22.1.2000               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 20/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kantongerecht                      Pleas in law and main arguments
te Groningen by decision of 19 October 1999 in the case
of Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Groningen
and Challenger Trading Company Ltd, a company incor-
                   porated under foreign law                                 The Commission considers that the Kingdom of Spain should,
                                                                             in accordance with Article 13 of the directive, have complied
                          (Case C-410/99)                                    with the designation obligation by no later than 21 May 1998,
                                                                             and states that, despite the adoption of Council Directive
                           (2000/C 20/21)                                    1999/30/EC (2), the first of the directives implementing Direc-
                                                                             tive 96/62/EC, the Kingdom of Spain has not yet notified it of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       the authorities and bodies responsible for implementing that
European Communities by decision of 19 October 1999 of                       directive.
the Kantongerecht te Groningen (Cantonal Court, Groningen),
which was received at the Court Registry on 27 October 1999,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Kamer van Koophandel                 (1) OJ L 296 of 21.11.1996, p. 55.
en Fabrieken voor Groningen (Chamber of Commerce and                         (2) OJ L 163 of 29.6.1999, p. 41.
Industry for Groningen) and Challenger Trading Company Ltd,
a company incorporated under foreign law, on the following
question:
Do the (new) Articles 43 and 48 of the Treaty establishing the
European Community preclude formally foreign companies,
within the meaning of Article 1 of the Wet op de formeel
buitenlandse vennootschappen (Netherlands Law on formally
foreign companies), from being subject in the Netherlands to
the provisions of Article 2 et seq of that Law? (1)
                                                                             Action brought on 29 October 1999 by the Commission
(1) Article 2 et seq of this Law make formally foreign companies
                                                                             of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
    subject to a number of provisions of Netherlands company law
    designed to protect the interests of third parties, such as provisions
    concerning registration in the Commercial Register, minimum
    capital, duty to maintain accounts, as well as the preparation,                                     (Case C-418/99)
    arrangement and publication of annual accounts.
                                                                                (2000/C 20/23)
Action brought on 29 October 1999 by the Commission                          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 October
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                 Spain                                       1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,
                                                                             and Giacinto Bisogni, an appeal court judge on secondment to
                          (Case C-417/99)
                                                                             its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
                                                                             in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                           (2000/C 20/22)                                    Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
29 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Com-                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
munities, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                    — declare that, by failing to adopt, or at any rate to
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                                communicate to the Commission, the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                       with Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament
                                                                                and of the Council of 16 December 1997(1) on the
— declare that, by failing to designate the competent auth-                       approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
     orities and bodies referred to in the first paragraph of                     to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate
     Article 3 of Council Directive 96/62/EC (1) of 27 Septem-                    pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed
     ber 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and manage-                       in non-road mobile machinery, the Italian Republic has
     ment, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its                          failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
     obligations under that directive;
— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                               — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 16 November 1995 in Case C-244/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the French Conseil d'Etat): Fédération Française des Sociétés d'Assurance v. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Article 85 et seq. of the EC Treaty - Concept of an 'undertaking' - Organization managing an optional supplementary social security scheme)

text:
No C 31 /2              EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                        3 . 2 . 96
interpretation of Articles 67 and 71 of the EC Treaty — the            compulsory scheme, established by law as an optional
Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,                scheme and operating according to the principle of
D. A. O. Edward and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ),              capitalization in keeping with the rules laid down by the
G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de                  authorities in particular with regard to conditions for
Almeida ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann , J. L. Murray, P. Jann,            membership, contributions and benefits, is an undertaking
FL Ragnemalm and L. Sevòn, Judges; Advocate General ;                  within the meaning of Article 85 et seq . of the EC
M. B. Elmer, Registrar; D. Louterman-Hubeau , Principal                Treaty.
Administrator, gave a judgment on 14 November 1995 , the
operative part of which is as follows :                                (') O J No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .
It is not compatible with Articles 59 and 67 ofthe EC Treaty
for a Member State to make the grant ofa housing benefit, in
particular an interest rate subsidy, subject to the
requirement that the loans intended to finance the
construction, acquisition or improvement of the housing                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
which is to benefit from the subsidy have been obtained                                    of 22 November 1995
from a credit institution approved in that Member State,
which implies that it must be established there.                       in Case C-443/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the Elengtiko Sinedrio ): Ioannis Vougioukas v. Idrima
                                                                                Koinonikon Asphalisseon ( IKA ) (')
(') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
                                                                       (Interpretation and validity of Article 4 (4) of Regulation
                                                                       (EEC) No 1408/71 and interpretation ofArticles 48 and SI
                                                                       of the Treaty — Special schemes for civil servants — Greek
                                                                                doctor employed in a German hospital)
                                                                                ( 96/C 3 1 /04
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                     of 16 November 1995                                              (Language of the case: Greek)
in Case C-244/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the French Conseil d'Etat ): Fédération Française des                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Sociétés d'Assurance v. Ministry of Agriculture and                             published in the European Court Reports)
                             Fisheries (')
                                                                       In Case C-443/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
(Article 85 et seq. of the EC Treaty — Concept of an
 'undertaking' — Organization managing an optional                     of the EC Treaty from the Elengtiko Sinedrio ( Court of
            supplementary social security scheme)                      Auditors ) ( Greece ) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                       proceedings pending before that court between Ioannis
                            ( 96/C 31 /03 )                           Vougioukas and Idrima Koinonikon Asphalisseon ( IKA ) —
                                                                       on the interpretation and validity of Article 4 ( 4 ) of Council
               (Language of the case: French)                          Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
                                                                       application of social security schemes to employed persons,
                                                                       to self-employed persons and to members of their families
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                       moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ
                                                                       1983 No L 230, p. 6 ) — the Court, composed of G. C.
In Case C-244/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177            Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.
of the EC Treaty by the French Conseil d'Etat for a                    Edward and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), F. A.
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn,
court between Federation Française des Sociétés                        C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and
d'Assurance, Societe Paternelle-Vie, Union des Assurances              L. Sevòn, Judges ; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
de Paris-Vie, Caisse d'Assurance et de Prévoyance Mutuelle             General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
des Agriculteurs on the one hand, and Ministry of                      given a judgment on 22 November 1995 , in which it
Agriculture and Fisheries on the other, on the interpretation          rules :
of Article 85 et seq . of the EC Treaty — the Court, composed
of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris and             1 . The term 'civil servants ' in Article 4 (4) of Council
D. A. O. Edward ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini,                 Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn,                application of social security schemes to employed
C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and                        persons, to self-employed persons and to members of
L. Sevòn, Judges; Advocate General : G. Tesauro, Registrar:                their families moving within the Community, as
H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
given a judgment on 16 November 1995 , the operative part                  No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 , does not refer only to civil
of which is as follows :
                                                                           servants covered by the derogation provided for in
                                                                           Article 48 (4) of the Treaty, as interpreted by the Court,
A non-profit-making organization which manages an                          but to all civil servants employed by a public authority
old-age insurance scheme intended to supplement a basic                    and persons treated as such.


title: Case T-225/06: Action brought on 26 August 2006 — Budějovický Budvar v OHIM — Anheuser-Busch (BUD)

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/20

         Action brought on 26 August 2006 — Budějovický Budvar v OHIM — Anheuser-Busch (BUD)
   (Case T-225/06)
   (2006/C 261/39)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (České Budějovice, Czech Republic) (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Anheuser-Busch Incorporated
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision of 14 June 2006 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM;

               —

               reject the application for registration of the word mark ‘BUD’ No 1 603 539 to designate goods in Classes 32 and 33;

               —

               send the decision of the Court of First Instance to OHIM;

               —

               order Anheuser-Busch to pay all the costs and expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Anheuser-Busch Incorporated

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘BUD’ for goods in Classes 32 and 33 — Application No 1 603 539

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Protected designation of origin ‘BUD’ to designate beer

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 62(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (1) and Article 20 of implementing Regulation No 2868/95 (2) in that the Board of Appeal is not competent to rule on the validity of the designation of origin invoked by the applicant in the context of its opposition. It also submits that the sign ‘BUD’ constitutes a designation of origin, protected in both France and Austria. The applicant moreover invokes misapplication of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 in that, in its view, the designation of origin ‘BUD’ is indeed a sign used in the course of trade.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1)


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Sundsvall, by order of that court of 6 August 1996 in the case of Anne Kuusijärvi v. Riksförsäkringsverket (Case C-275/96)

text:
 5 . 10 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 294/7
goods under subheading 30 of the Common Customs Tariff                 criminal proceedings against him should take place in
or another subheading ?                                                another language where nationals of that State in the same
                                                                       circumstances enjoy such a right ?
 (') OJ No L 94 , 9 . 4 . 1986 , p . 9 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i
Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli by                 Sundsvall, by order of that court of 6 August 1996 in the
orders of that court of 3 July 1996 in criminal proceedings                  case of Anne Kuusijärvi v. Riksförsäkringsverket
pending before it against Antonio Nardi , Alfredo Cipriani                                         Case C-275 /96 )
                   and Bartolomeo Terranova
                                                                                ( 96/C 294/14 )
          ( Cases C-271 /96, C-272/96 and C-273/96 )
                             96/C 294/ 12
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Kammarätten i
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 Sundsvall ( Administrative Court of Appeal, Sundsvall ), of
European Communities by orders of the Pretura                          6 August 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome             14 August 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Anne
District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of 3 July 1996 ,        Kuusijärvi v. Riksförsäkringsverket on the following
which were received at the Court Registry on 12 August                 questions :
 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings
pending before it against Antonio Nardi , Alfredo Cipriani
and Bartolomeo Terranova .                                             1 . Does Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 (') apply at all to a
                                                                            person who, before the Regulation became applicable in
                                                                            Sweden, moved from Finland to Sweden and took up
The questions referred by the Pretura Circondariale di                      employment here, but who was not in employment in
Roma , Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli to the Court of Justice                 Sweden when the Regulation came into force in Sweden
for a preliminary ruling are identical with those in Case                   and did not come here as an unemployed person after
C-58/95 (1).                                                                the Regulation became applicable in Sweden, but only
                                                                            stayed here at that time as an unemployed person after a
(') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .                                   previous period of employment and then drew Swedish
                                                                            unemployment benefit. That is to say, can a person in
                                                                            that situation claim that, after 1 January 1994, on the
                                                                            basis of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 , he or she is
                                                                            covered by Swedish legislation as regards entitlement to
                                                                            Swedish social security benefits in the form of parental
                                                                            benefit ?
References for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
Circondariale di Bolzano, Silandro Division, by orders of
that court of 2 August 1996 in the criminal proceedings                If that question is answered in the affirmative, the following
pending before that court against Horst Otto Bickel and                questions also need to be answered :
                             Ulrich Franz
                (Cases C-274/96a and C-274/96 )                        2 . Is Article 13 ( 2 ) ( f) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 , in
                           ( 96/C 294/ 13                                   conjunction with Article 10 ( b ) of Regulation
                                                                            No 574/72 ( 2 ), to be understood as meaning that a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Member State is not precluded from introducing a
European Communities by orders of the Pretura                               condition of residence in its territory in order for a
Circondariale ( District Magistrates ' Court ), Bolzano,                    person who has ceased working there to remain covered
Silandro Division, of 2 August 1996 , which was received at                 by that country's legislation as regards cash maternity
                                                                            benefits ?
the Court Registry on 12 August 1996 , for a preliminary
ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court
against Horst Otto Bickel and Ulrich Franz on the following            3 . Is Article 22 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 to be
question :                                                                  understood as meaning that, if a person begins to draw
                                                                            cash maternity benefits in a competent State, that person
Do the principles of non-discrimination within the meaning                  retains entitlement, on the conditions applying
of the first paragraph of Article 6 , the right of citizens of the          according to that Article , to those cash benefits when
Union to move and reside within the meaning of Article 8a                   moving to another Member State only on condition that
and the freedom to provide services within the meaning of                   the person concerned fulfils all the provisions of the
Article 59 of the Treaty mean that a citizen of the Union who               legislation applied by the competent country, that is to
is a national of a Member State and resides in another                      say including the requirement, laid down in those
Member State must be granted the right to require that                      provisions , that the person concerned must be resident
 ---pagebreak--- No C 294/8                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5 . 10 . 96
       in its territory, or is Article 22 to be interpreted as           prescribed for doing so . That period expired on 1 January
       meaning that such entitlement exists so long as the               1986 without the Portuguese Republic having brought into
       person concerned fulfils all other conditions of the              force the necessary provisions .
       national legislation of the country which he or she
       leaves , apart from the residence requirement ?                   (') OJ No L 265 , 5 . 10 . 1984 , p . 1 .
(') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
      application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
      self-employed persons and to members of their families moving
      within the Community ( OJ English Special Edition 1971 ( II ),
      p. 416 ).                                                          Action brought on 21 August 1996 by the Commission of
( 2 ) Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying        the European Communities against the French Republic
      down the procedure for implementing Regulation ( EEC )
      No 1408/71 ( OJ English Special Edition 1972 ( I ), p. 159 ).                                Case C-282/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 294/ 16 )
                                                                         An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         21 August 1996 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities , represented by Gotz zur Flausen , acting as
Action brought on 14 August 1996 by the Commission of                    Agent, assisted by J. -J. Evrard, of the Brussels Bar, with an
the European Communities against the Portuguese                          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                Republic                                 Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                             Case C-276/96 )
                              96/C 294/ 1 5                              The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                         — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                        administrative provisions necessary to comply with
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                    Council Directive 91 / 157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on
14 August 1996 by the Commission of the European                              batteries and accumulators containing certain
Communities, represented by Thomas F. Cusack and Dr                           dangerous substances ('), or by failing to notify such
Francisco de Sousa Fialho, acting as Agents, with an address                 measures, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de                    obligations under that Directive ,
la Cruz, of its Legal Service , Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
                                                                         — order the French Republic to pay the costs .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             Pleas in law and main arguments
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws , regulations or            Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
       administrative provisions necessary to comply with                directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved , on
       Article 3 of Council Directive 84/466/Euratom of                  each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States
       3 September 1984 laying down basic measures for the               are required to observe the time limits laid down in
       radiation protection of persons undergoing medical                directives for their transposition . That time limit expired on
       examination or treatment ('), the Portuguese Republic             18 September 1992 without the French Republic having
       has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third              brought into force the necessary provisions in order to
       paragraph of Article 161 of the Euratom Treaty and                comply with the Directive referred to in the Commission 's
       Article 7 of Directive 84/466/Euratom , in conjunction            application .
       with Article 399 of the Act concerning the conditions of
       accession of the Portuguese Republic,                             (') OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 38 .
— declare , in the alternative , that, by failing to inform the
       Commission forthwith thereof, the Portuguese Republic
       failed to fulfil its obligations under the abovementioned
       provisions ,
                                                                         Action brought on 21 August 1996 by the Commission of
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .                         the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                Case C-283 /96 )
 Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                    ( 96/C 294/ 17 )
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                      An action against the French Republic was brought before
 paragraph of Article 161 of the Euratom Treaty requires                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
 Member States to adopt the measures necessary to transpose              21 August 1996 by the Commission of the European
 directives addressed to them before the expiry of the period             Communities , represented by Gotz zur Hausen , acting as


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 April 2001 in Case T-87/00 Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Term EASYBANK — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
11.8.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 227/17
(Germany), represented by R. Collin and M.-C. Mitchell,                   1.    Dismisses the action;
Avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: E. Gippini                 2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Fournier) — application for annulment of Commission
Decision 1999/267/EC of 7 April 1999 relating to a proceed-
ing pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/36.147 EPI
code of conduct) (OJ 1999 L 106, p. 14) — the Court of                    (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij,
President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; G. Herzig,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
28 March 2001, in which it:
1.    Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 1999/267/EC of
      7 April 1999 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85
      of the EC Treaty (IV/36.147 EPI Code of Conduct) in so far as
      it concerns Article 2(b)(3) and Article 5(c) of the Code of
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      Conduct of the Institute of Professional Representatives before
      the European Patent Office;
                                                                                of 5 April 2001
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs, including those         in Case T-87/00 Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG v
      incurred in the interlocutory procedure.                            Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                                Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.99.
                                                                          (Community trade mark — Term EASYBANK — Absolute
                                                                          grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/33)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                 (Language of the case: German)
                           of 3 May 2001                                  In Case T-87/00 Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG, estab-
                                                                          lished in Vienna (Austria), represented by G. Kucsko, Rechtsan-
in Case T-60/00: Paraskevi Liaskou v Council of the                       walt, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office
                        European Union (1)                                for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                          Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, J.F. Crespo
                                                                          Carrillo and S. Laitinen) — application for annulment of the
(Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance —                      decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
    Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations)                Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                          Designs) of 31 January 2000 (Case R 316/1999-3), refusing
                          (2001/C 227/32)                                 registration of the term EASYBANK as a Community trade
                                                                          mark — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
                                                                          composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,
                                                                          Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                    (Language of the case: French)                        given a judgment on 5 April 2001, in which it:
In Case T-60/00: Paraskevi Liaskou, an official of the Council            1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
of the European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by                     for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
E. Boigelot, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg,                 Designs) of 31 January 2000 (Case R 316/1999-3);
v Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Anton and
D. Zahariou) — application, first, for annulment of the                   2.    Orders the defendant to pay the costs.
Council’s decision of 5 July 1999 refusing to grant the
applicant the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4
of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and, second, for payment
of that allowance together with default interest — the Court              (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.00.
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi,
President, and V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; B. Pastor,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 3 May 2001, in which it:


title: Case T-582/15: Action brought on 11 September 2015 — Silver Plastics and Johannes Reifenhäuser v Commission

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/40

         Action brought on 11 September 2015 — Silver Plastics and Johannes Reifenhäuser v Commission
   (Case T-582/15)
   (2016/C 016/50)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG (Troisdorf, Germany) and Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Troisdorf) (represented by: M. Wirtz, S. Möller and W. Carstensen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 24 June 2015 in Case AT.39563 in so far as it concerns the applicants;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants to an amount that, having regard to the fact that the applicants do not form an economic entity, does not exceed 10 % of the first applicant’s turnover during the last full business year before the adoption of the decision imposing the fine;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants to an amount that, having regard to the divestment of the Maschinenfabrik company, does not exceed 10 % of each of the first or second applicants’ respective turnover during the last full business year;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants for the area of ‘North-West Europe’ (‘NWE’) by determining the basic amount of the fine only on the basis of the turnover from expanded polystyrene (EPS) trays;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants for the NWE area by determining distinct fines for the EPS tray and polypropylene (PP) tray product ranges, on the basis of the different periods of infringement;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants by reducing the share of turnover used in determining the basic amount of the fine to a factor which appropriately reflects the fact that the practices employed by the first applicant in the NWE area and in France, or in the alternative only in the NEW area, ought to have been characterised as mere exchanges of information and not as hardcore price agreements, and by waiving the hardcore additional amount for the NWE area and/or France;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants by assessing the fine for the NWE area solely on the basis of the turnover achieved in Germany;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants for the NWE area by waiving the hardcore additional amount, or in the alternative by reducing the hardcore additional amount, having regard to the fact that the infringements in the NWE area were appreciably less capable of distorting competition than the infringements in the other geographical areas;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants for the areas of NWE and France to an appropriate amount;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants claim that the Court should annul in part Commission Decision C (2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging).
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on seven pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of Article 7(1) and Article 23(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) in conjunction with Article 101(1) TFEU
               The applicants claim that the Commission incorrectly characterised the practices employed by the first applicant in the geographical area of North-West Europe (‘NWE’) as hardcore price agreements taking the form of a single continuous infringement concerning the production and sales of polypropylene and polystyrene trays for the food industry.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU and Article 2 of Regulation (EG) No 1/2003 in conjunction with the principle of examination by the Commission of its own motion
               By this plea in law the applicants claim that the Commission has not sufficiently satisfied the burden of proof incumbent on it and its duty to state reasons.

               3.

               Third plea in law: infringement of the procedural rights protected as fundamental rights under Article 6(1), (2) and (3)(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 47(2), 48 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
               The applicants claim that the Commission infringed their rights to equality of arms and to a fair trial in that the calling and examination of witnesses on their behalf named by the applicants and the adversarial examination of a witness against them were, following several requests, refused.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: infringement of paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 of the Leniency Notice (2)

               Furthermore, the applicants claim that no reduction in the fine was granted to them for the evidence that they adduced on the alleged infringements in the NWE area, despite the fact that the conditions for such a reduction were satisfied.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: infringement of the first and second sentences of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in conjunction with Article 101(1) TFEU
               The Commission incorrectly assumed that the applicants formed a single economic entity and therefore formed an undertaking within the meaning of the abovementioned provisions.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law: infringement of the second sentence of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003
               The applicants claim that, in so far as it did not take into account the second applicant’s termination of its participation in Reifenhäuser GmbH & Co. KG Maschinenfabrik, which had taken legal effect at the time of the decision imposing the fine, and included the turnover of that separated undertaking when assessing the fine, the Commission exceeded the statutory limit for fines of 10 % of the turnover of the undertaking at issue.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law: infringement of Article 23(2)(a) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in conjunction with paragraphs 19, 20 and 25 of Guidelines on the method of setting fines (3) and the principle of equal treatment
               By this plea in law the applicants claim that, for all cartels covered by the decision imposing the fine and for all relevant undertakings, a uniform share of turnover of 16 % for determining the basic amount and a uniform hardcore additional amount of 16 % were fixed, to the detriment of the applicants, despite the fact that both the structures of the individual cartels and the individual participation of the undertakings differed greatly from one another.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).

      (3)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).


title: Case C-697/15: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — MB Srl v Società Metropolitana Acque Torino (SMAT) SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Directive 2014/24/EU — Participation in a call for tenders — Tenderer having omitted to mention in the tender the undertaking’s charges in relation to safety and security at work — That obligation created by case-law — Exclusion from the tendering procedure without the possibility of remedying that omission)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/8

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — MB Srl v Società Metropolitana Acque Torino (SMAT) SpA
   (Case C-697/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Public contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Directive 2014/24/EU - Participation in a call for tenders - Tenderer having omitted to mention in the tender the undertaking’s charges in relation to safety and security at work - That obligation created by case-law - Exclusion from the tendering procedure without the possibility of remedying that omission))
   (2017/C 063/12)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: MB Srl

      Defendant: Società Metropolitana Acque Torino (SMAT) SpA

      Operative part of the order

   The principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency, as implemented by Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the exclusion of a tenderer from a tendering procedure for a public works contract following that tenderer’s failure to comply with the obligation to indicate separately in the tender the undertaking’s charges in relation to safety and security at work — the failure to comply with which carries the penalty of exclusion from the procedure — which is not set out expressly in the tender documents or the national rules, but is based on an interpretation of those rules and the filling in of the gaps in those documents carried out by the national court ruling at final instance. The principles of equal treatment and proportionality must also be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude the possibility of granting that tenderer an opportunity to remedy the situation and to satisfy that obligation within a period prescribed by the contracting authority.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.


title: Case C-347/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — New Media Online GmbH v Bundeskommunikationssenat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2010/13/EU — Concepts of ‘programme’ and ‘audiovisual media service’ — Determination of the principal purpose of an audiovisual media service — Comparability of the service to television broadcasting — Inclusion of short videos in a section of a newspaper’s website available on the Internet)

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — New Media Online GmbH v Bundeskommunikationssenat
   (Case C-347/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2010/13/EU - Concepts of ‘programme’ and ‘audiovisual media service’ - Determination of the principal purpose of an audiovisual media service - Comparability of the service to television broadcasting - Inclusion of short videos in a section of a newspaper’s website available on the Internet))
   (2015/C 414/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: New Media Online GmbH

      Respondent: Bundeskommunikationssenat

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The concept of ‘programme’, within the meaning of Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive), must be interpreted as including, under the subdomain of a website of a newspaper, the provision of videos of short duration consisting of local news bulletins, sports and entertainment clips.

               2.

               On a proper interpretation of Article 1(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2010/13, assessment of the principal purpose of a service making videos available offered in the electronic version of a newspaper must focus on whether that service as such has content and form which is independent of that of the journalistic activity of the operator of the website at issue, and is not merely an indissociable complement to that activity, in particular as a result of the links between the audiovisual offer and the offer in text form. That assessment is a matter for the referring court.

      (1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.


title: Case C-140/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 17 March 2017 — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Gmina Ryjewo

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 17 March 2017 — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Gmina Ryjewo
   (Case C-140/17)
   (2017/C 202/16)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

      Respondent: Gmina Ryjewo

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light of Articles 167, 168 and 184 et seq. of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and the principle of neutrality, does a municipality have the right to deduct (by effecting an adjustment) input tax on its investment expenditure in the case where:

                           —

                           in the initial period after production (acquisition), the capital goods were used for the purposes of a non-taxable area of activity (in connection with the municipality’s performance of the tasks of a public authority within its area of responsibility); and

                           —

                           the use to which the capital goods are put has changed and they will in future be used by the municipality also to carry out taxable transactions?

               2.

               Is it relevant to the answer to the first question that, at the time when the capital goods were produced or acquired, the municipality’s intention to use those goods in future to carry out taxable transactions was not indicated clearly?

               3.

               Is it relevant to the answer to the first question that the capital goods will be used for the purpose of carrying out both taxable and non-taxable transactions (in connection with the performance of the tasks of a public authority) and that it is not possible to ascribe specific investment expenditure to one of the abovementioned transaction categories?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.