title: Case T-226/10: Action brought on 14 May 2010 — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej v Commission

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/41

         Action brought on 14 May 2010 — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej v Commission
   (Case T-226/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/64
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: H. Gruszecka and D. Pawłowska, legal advisers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 3 March 2010 in Case PL/2009/1019, concerning the national wholesale market for IP traffic exchange (IP transit), and in Case PL/2009/1020, concerning the national wholesale market for IP traffic exchange (IP peering) with the network of Telekomunikacja Polska S.A.;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The application seeks the annulment of Decision C(2010) 1234 of the European Commission of 3 March 2010 adopted pursuant to Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (Framework Directive), (1) in which the Commission has required the Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej (President of the Office for Electronic Communications) to withdraw draft decisions concerning the wholesale market for IP traffic exchange (IP transit) and the wholesale market for IP peering with the network of Telekomunikacja Polska S.A, which were notified to the Commission on 27 November 2009 and registered under the numbers PL/2009/1019 and PL/2009/1020.
   The applicant sets out three pleas in law in support of his action.
   The applicant submits in the first plea that, in adopting the contested decision, the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements, including the principle of good administration, the principle of effective cooperation and the consultation mechanism laid down in Article 7 of the Framework Directive, on the ground that the determination made in the contested decision was based on an incorrect translation of the draft decisions submitted by the applicant in the notification procedure, thereby causing the Commission to make erroneous findings on the factual situation which constitutes the framework for the determination notified. Furthermore, the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements by not stating adequate reasons for the contested decision, by reason of the lack of a detailed and objective analysis of the grounds which led the Commission to make the determination requiring withdrawal of the draft decisions notified.
   Second, the applicant pleads that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in finding that IP peering and IP transit services are mutually substitutable. IP peering and IP transit services are not mutually substitutable because they differ as to the extent of IP traffic exchanged between telecommunications undertakings, as to methods for calculating payments for services provided, as to the very definition of service provider (ISP) and as to service quality.
   Third, in the applicant’s submission, the Commission also infringed Article 4(3) TEU and Article 102 TFEU in conjunction with Articles 7(4), 8(2)(b) and (c), 14(2), 15(3) and 16(4) of the Framework Directive in considering that the wholesale markets for IP traffic exchange in Poland (IP transit and IP peering) are not two separate markets, that they are not susceptible to ex ante regulation and that Telekomunikacja Polska S.A does not have significant power on both those markets. The applicant contends that, in accordance with the requirements contained in the recommendation (2) and the guidelines, (3) he carried out a market analysis from the point of view of the justification for ex ante regulation and incontestably examined the three relevant criteria. That examination fully confirmed that the markets for IP peering and IP transit traffic exchange are susceptible to ex ante regulation because they are characterised by high and non-transitory barriers, their structure does not tend towards effective competition within the relevant time horizon and application of competition law alone would not adequately address the market failures concerned.

      (1)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2008 L 108, p. 33).

      (2)  Commission Recommendation of 17 December 2007 on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (notified under document number C(2007) 5406) (OJ 2007 L 344, p. 65).

      (3)  Commission guidelines on market analysis and the assessment of significant market power under the Community regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 C 165, p. 6).


title: Case C-37/05: Action brought on 31 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/13

         Action brought on 31 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom
   (Case C-37/05)
   (2005/C 82/28)
   Language of procedure: English
   An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Mr Michel van Beek, acting as agent, assisted by Mr Frédéric Louis, avocat, and Mr A. Capobianco, avvocato, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission requests that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, in failing to correctly transpose the requirements of Articles 2(1) and 4 of the Council Directive 85/337/CEE on the assessment of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC (2), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive and under the Treaty.

               —

               order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   A directive must be transposed into binding provisions of national law in a manner that fully satisfies the requirements of clarity and legal certainty. Administrative guidance does not ensure compliance with these requirements. A mere assurance that a practical breach of the provisions of Council directive 85/337/CEE is unlikely to arise in practice does not constitute effective transposition of that directive.

      (1)  OJ L 175, 05.07.1985, p. 4

      (2)  OJ L 73, 14.03.1997, p. 5


title: Case T-55/12: Action brought on 8 February 2012 — Chen v OHIM — AM Denmark (Cleaning devices)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/27

         Action brought on 8 February 2012 — Chen v OHIM — AM Denmark (Cleaning devices)
   (Case T-55/12)
   2012/C 133/53
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Su-Shan Chen (Sanchong, Taiwan) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AM Denmark A/S (Kokkedal, Denmark)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 October 2011 in case R 2179/2010-3; and

               —

               Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A design for the product ‘cleaning devices’ — registered Community design No 1027718-0001

      Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal requested the invalidation of the RCD based on Articles 4 to 9 and Article 25(1)(e) of Council Regulation No 6/2002; three-dimensional Community trade mark registration No 5185079, for goods in classes 3 and 21

      Decision of the Invalidity Division: Declared the contested RCD invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 25(1)(e) of Council Regulation No 6/2002, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed that the earlier Community trade mark was used in the contested Community design. Besides, the Board of Appeal did not have to presume that the earlier trade mark possessed at least a minimum degree of distinctiveness necessary for its registrability. Infringement of Article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal did not correctly apply this Article. Indeed, contrary to the view taken by OHIM, Article 9(1)(b) CTMR does not confer on other party before the OHIM the right to prohibit the use of the contested Community design, as there is no likelihood of confusion. In particular, the applicant’s Community design and the trade mark of the other party are not so similar as to account for a likelihood of confusion.


title: Case C-272/07: Action brought on 7 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/14

         Action brought on 7 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-272/07)
   (2007/C 211/25)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               1.

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with 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 (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 80 of that directive;
               In the alternative:

                           declare that, by failing to notify the Commission of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with 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, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 80 of that directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2004/18/EC expired on 31 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 134, p. 114.


title: Action brought on 6 March 1996 by Doreen Chew against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-28/96)

text:
4 . 5 . 96            HN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 133/29
— order the Commission to pay the costs in their                     Instance of the European Communities on 6 March 1996 by
     entirety .                                                      Doreen Chew, residing in Suva ( Fiji ), represented by Nicolas
                                                                     Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue
Pleas in law and main arguments                                      Glesener .
The applicant, who is a member of the local staff employed
by the Commission's Delegation to Morocco, contests the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
irregularities which he alleges have vitiated the procedure
for electing representatives of staff serving outside the
                                                                     — annul the Electoral Committee's decision accepting the
Community .
                                                                         votes from the Delegation to the Solomon Islands, cast in
                                                                         the regional ballot for geographical area No 3 for the
At its meeting of 13 February 1995 , the Electoral                       election of a representative for local staff,
Committee — reversing an earlier decision — took the view
that, out of 23 votes cast in a regional ballot in Morocco for
the election of a member of the local staff, two were invalid,       — annul the election result announced by the Electoral
in the first case because the vote was not indicated on the              Committee at its meeting of 13 February 1995 in so far
regulation ballot paper, in the second because the vote was              as it named the regional representative elected by the
cast by correspondence and the outside envelope bearing the              local staff constituency for geographical area No 3 ,
name and signature of the voter was not attached to the list
of voters' signatures . As a result of the position adopted by       — declare the applicant to be the representative elected for
the Committee, the applicant was not elected.                            the local staff constituency in geographical area
                                                                         No 3 ,
The applicant maintains, first, that the voters' list drawn up
by the Head of the Commission's Delegation to Morocco                — in so far as may be necessary, annul the decision adopted
was incomplete because it did not include three members of               by the Commission expressly rejecting the applicant's
the local staff on temporary contracts who were eligible to              complaint,
vote . Those persons are members of the local staff, whether
or not they are on temporary contracts, and must at the very
least be treated as local staff since they have been in service      — at the very least, declare that the Commission has
for 3 years, 15 months and 12 months, respectively. The                  committed an error by taking into consideration the
Commission therefore acted in breach of its duty under                   votes from the Solomon Islands for the election of a
Article 9 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations to ensure that the              member of the local staff in the regional ballot and order
electoral procedure is properly conducted .                              the Commission to pay the applicant 1 franc by way of
                                                                         symbolic compensation for non-material damage,
Secondly, the applicant contests the Electoral Committee's
rejection of two of the votes freely entered by                      — order the Commission to pay the costs in their
correspondence . The applicant emphasizes that those two                 entirety .
votes were cast strictly in accordance with the free choice of
each voter. The fact that the special form was not used
cannot therefore affect the validity of the vote reflecting that     Pleas in law and main arguments
free choice . Furthermore , in so far as the voters from the
Morocco Delegation did not comply with certain formal                The applicant relates that, during December 1994, elections
procedural rules, but without prejudice to the certainty and         were held to provide for local and regional representation of
effectiveness of the vote, the applicant cannot be penalized         staff serving outside the Community in the various
for shortcomings which are a direct result of a failure on the       Commission delegations . At the meeting convened on
part of the Flead of Delegation to provide information .             12 January 1995 to establish the election report, the
                                                                     Electoral Committee declared that at the Delegation to the
                                                                     Solomon Islands the members of local staff had cast six
                                                                     votes in the regional ballot, whereas only five voters had
                                                                     signed the list of voters/signatures; the Committee also
                                                                     declared that if the votes from the Solomon Islands were not
                                                                     counted, the applicant would win the election . The Head of
Action brought on 6 March 1996 by Doreen Chew against                the Commission's Delegation to the Solomon Islands
        the Commission of the European Communities                   informed the Electoral Committee that the signature of one
                        ( Case T-28/96 )                             voter, who had voted, did not appear on the list of
                                                                     voters/signatures because of a ' substantive error' and
                          ( 96/C 133/62                              forwarded a copy, duly rectified, of the list in question. The
                                                                     Electoral Committee decided, therefore, at its meeting of
                (Language of the case: French)                       13 February 1995 , to accept the results forwarded from the
                                                                     Delegation to the Solomon Islands and declared that
                                                                     another candidate had been elected, not the applicant. The
An action against the Commission of the European                     applicant submitted a complaint against that decision,
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    which was expressly rejected .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 133/30          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4 . 5 . 96
In support of her application, the applicant relies on the plea     — order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
that the election procedure was irregular in so far as the               proceedings pursuant to Article 87 et seq . of the Rules of
Electoral Committee counted the votes cast by the members                Procedure , and in particular the expenses relating to the
of local staff in the Delegation to the Solomon Islands                  address for service, travel and subsistence expenses and
whereas , contrary to the instructions of 19 October 1994                lawyer's fees .
sent by the Electoral Committee to all heads of delegations,
the number of votes cast did not match the number of voters .
The Head of the Delegation indeed affirmed that the six
members of local staff had cast their votes in the proper           Pleas in law and main arguments
manner, but that statement cannot be verified . The Electoral
Committee was therefore wrong to declare the regional               The applicant, a former temporary member of staff with the
elections held in the Solomon Islands to be valid and to
count the votes cast in those elections .
                                                                    ELDR Group in the European Parliament, was affected by
                                                                    total incapacity for work as the result of an illness during the
                                                                    final period of his contract. He contests the refusal by the
The applicant also points out that, under Article 9 ( 2 ) of the    defendant institution to remunerate him for the leave which
Staff Regulations, the Commission has the right, and is             he did not take in 1994 .
under a duty, to ensure that elections to the Staff Committee
are properly conducted and to intervene if the electoral rules
are not complied with . In the present case, there was a            The applicant takes particular exception to the Parliament's
manifest irregularity in the electoral procedure; the               assertion that he unjustifiably absented himself during the
Commission should therefore have intervened in order to             month of 2 September 1994 and that this absence ought
mitigate the consequences of that irregularity, but failed to       accordingly to be deducted from his leave pursuant to
do so .                                                             Article 60 of the Staff Regulations .
                                                                    The applicant stresses in this regard that medical certificates
                                                                    covering the period in question were properly submitted to
                                                                    the secretariat of the Parliament's Medical Service . He also
                                                                    points out that his legal counsel expressly referred to
                                                                    incapacity by reason of illness in September 1994 and that
                                                                    he was at no time told that payment would not be made to
                                                                    him in respect of all or some of those unused leave days on
Action brought on 8 March 1996 by Bernd Schoch against
                                                                    the ground that the Parliament had not received any medical
                  the European Parliament                           certificate for September 1994 . In fact, it was not until
                       ( Case T-29/96 )                             12 May 1995 that the allegedly unauthorized nature of his
                         ( 96/C 133/63 )                            absence was raised . The applicant wishes to point out in this
                                                                    regard that, following denials that the medical certificates
                                                                    had been submitted for the periods after 15 July 1994,
               (Language of the case: French)                       certificates were none the less rediscovered for the period
                                                                    from 16 July 1994 to 1 September 1994 .
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European                  In a strictly legal context, the applicant submits that
Communities on 8 March 1 996 by Bernd Schoch, residing in           Article 60 of the Staff Regulations provides that an allegedly
Gottmadingen ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented           unauthorized absence must be established and that, in so far
                                                                    as it was not until seven months after the material time that
by Lucas Vogel , of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christian                  it was claimed that the applicant had failed to submit a
Kremer, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt.                                    medical certificate for September 1994 — even though the
                                                                    applicant's counsel had in that same month expressly
                                                                    referred to his client's incapacity by reason of illness during
The applicant claims that the Court should :                        that month — that finding would appear to be too late to
                                                                    justify application of the abovementioned Article 60 .
— annul the implied decision of rejection and the express
    decision of partial rejection taken by the European             Finally, even if the Court were to take the view that the
    Parliament on 26 February 1996 in respect of the                applicant's incapacity cannot be accepted as justification for
    complaint lodged by the applicant on 9 August 1 995 ,           his absence in September 1994, that absence ought in any
                                                                    event to be regarded as justified by the decision of the ELDR
                                                                    Group to give him no further work and to release him from
— order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant             provision of notice .
    the gross sum of Bfr 124 120 in respect of the 1 9,5 leave
    days which he did not take in 1994 , increased by default
    interest at an annual rate of 8 % , with effect from
    31 December 1994 , the date on which that sum ought to
    have been paid to him,


title: Case T-147/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  12 January 2006  — Devinlec v OHIM (Community trade mark — Figurative mark containing the verbal element  quantum  — Opposition of the proprietor of the national figurative mark Quantième — Relative ground of refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b), Article 15(2) and Article 43(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/16

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 January 2006 — Devinlec v OHIM
   (Case T-147/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘quantum’ - Opposition of the proprietor of the national figurative mark Quantième - Relative ground of refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b), Article 15(2) and Article 43(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 74/31)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties:

      Applicant: Devinlec Développement Innovation Leclerc SA (Toulouse, France) (represented by: J.-P. Simon, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti ve diş Ticaret AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: F. Jacobacci, lawyer)
   Action
   brought against against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2003 (Case R 109/2002-3) relating to opposition proceedings between Devinlec Développement Innovation Leclerc SA and T.I.M.E. Art Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti ve diş Ticaret AŞ
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 January 2003 (Case R 109/2002-3).

               2.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay its own costs and those incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Court.

               3.

               Orders the intervener to pay its own costs and those incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 171 of 19.7.2003.


title: Case T-709/16: Order of the General Court of 21 March 2017 — La Patrouille v EUIPO — Alpha Industries (Représentation d'une figure avec des angles)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/34

         Order of the General Court of 21 March 2017 — La Patrouille v EUIPO — Alpha Industries (Représentation d'une figure avec des angles)
   (Case T-709/16) (1)

   (2017/C 178/52)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.


title: Case T-192/00: Action brought on 24 July 2000 by Sabrina Tesoka against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
23.9.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 273/15
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 24 July 2000 by Sabrina Tesoka against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the decision of 12 April 2000 by which the Council
      awarded to another company the contract for general
      installation and maintenance works forming the subject-                                    (Case T-192/00)
      matter of Notice 107865 published in Official Journal
      S 145 of 30 July 1999;
                                                                                (2000/C 273/26)
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay to
      Strabag, subject to increase, the sum of BEF 153 421 286
      or EUR 3 803 214 together with interest thereon at the
      rate of 6 % from 12 April 2000;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     order the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 24 July 2000 by Sabrina Tesoka,
                                                                         residing at Overijse (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël Louis
The applicant participated in the restricted tendering procedure         and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
relating to the installation and maintenance works to be
carried out in the Council’s buildings in Brussels.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
In support of its action for annulment, it maintains:
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the selection board in competition
—     that the contested decision is vitiated by the absence of a              COM/A/12/98 awarding her, in her oral test, a mark
      statement of reasons or, at the very least, by inadequate                lower than the minimum required and excluding her
      reasoning;                                                               from the reserve list;
—     that by attaching the greatest weight to the price criterion,
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      and by failing to consider the other criteria for the award
      of the contract as provided for in the tender specifications,
      the Council has infringed Articles 18 and 30 of Directi-
      ve 93/37/EEC (1);
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     that by awarding the contract to a company whose
      tender was not in conformity with the special tender
      specifications, the Council has infringed the terms of the
      latter document;                                                   In support of her application, the applicant pleads:
—     that by classifying three tenderers as being of equal merit        —     failure to comply with essential procedural requirements,
      with regard to the first criterion and, probably, another                violation of the principle of equal treatment and infringe-
      company and Strabag as being of equal merit with regard                  ment of the rules governing the functioning of selection
      to the fourth criterion, the Council committed manifest                  boards, in that the composition of the selection board
      errors of assessment.                                                    varied during the course of the oral testing of the various
                                                                               candidates; and
Lastly, the applicant claims compensation for the damage
which, it claims, results from the fact of its having been               —     non-compliance with the obligation to provide a state-
unfairly turned down as a tenderer for the contract in question.               ment of reasons, in that it is not possible to determine
                                                                               from the overall mark awarded for the oral test whether
                                                                               the selection board fulfilled its obligation to carry out an
                                                                               assessment of the points set out in the competition
(1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the                 notice.
    coordination of procedures for the award of public works
    contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 29 September 1995 in the case of Süleyman Eker v. Land Baden-Württemberg, parties to the proceedings: (1) Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, (2) Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses bei den Gerichten der allgemeinen Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit in Baden-Württemberg (Case C-386/95)

text:
3 . 2 . 96                 EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 31 /15
( a ) Must a taxable farmer, who in 1990 extensified his                           conditions to be met by ornamental plant
        potato production in Brandenburg ( Federal Republic of                     propagating material and ornamental plants
        Germany) to such an extent that at least 20 % of his                       pursuant to Council Directive 91 /682/EEC, and
        potato crop was not harvested by him, be regarded as
        having supplied a service to a specific recipient within                — Commission Directive 93/61 /EEC (4 ) of 2 July 1993
        the meaning of Article 6 ( 1 ) of the Sixth Council                         setting out the schedules indicating the conditions to
        Directive of 17 May 1977 ( 77/388/EEC ) on the                              be met by vegetable propagating and planting
        harmonization of the laws of the Member States                             material, other than seed pursuant to Council
        relating to turnover taxes ( J ) ('the Sixth Directive')?                  Directive 92/33/EEC ,
( b ) Does a subsidy paid for the extensification of potato                     the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its
        production on the basi? of the decree of 13 July 1990                   obligations under the Treaty.
        promoting the extensification of agricultural
        production constitute a payment chargeable to tax                  2 . order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs of the
        pursuant to Article 11 . A ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Sixth                     proceedings .
        Directive ?
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 ( c ) If the answer to question ( a ) is in the affirmative:
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
        Does the service supplied qualify for taxation at the              in Case C-360/95 ( 5 ); the timelimit for transposition expired
        reduced rate provided for by the fourth sentence of                on 1 January 1994 (Directive 92/45/EEC ) and 31 December
        Article 12 ( 3 ) ( a ) in conjunction with Annex H to the          1993 respectively.
        Sixth Directive ?
                                                                           (•)  OJ No  L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992 , p . 35 .
 ( 1 ) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                                (2 ) OJ No  L 250 , 7 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                           (3)  OJ No  L 250, 7 . 10 . 1993 , p. 9 .
                                                                           (4)  OJ No  L 250 , 7 . 10 . 1993 , p . 19 .
                                                                           (5)  OJ No  C 16 , 20 . 1 . 1996 , p . 7.
 Action brought on 8 December 1995 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                   Republic                                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                             ( Case C-385/95 )                             Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 29
                                ( 96/C 31 /30 )                            September 1995 in the case of Süleyman Eker v. Land
                                                                           Baden-Württemberg, parties to the proceedings: ( 1 )
                                                                           Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, ( 2 )
 An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                     Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses bei den Gerichten
  before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on               der       allgemeinen          Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit     in
  8 December 1995 by the Commission of the European                                                Baden-Württemberg
  Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro, Legal
  Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                                            ( Case C-386/95 )
  Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its                                            96/C 31 /31
  Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
  The applicant claims that the Court should :                              European Communities by an order of the First Senate of the
                                                                            Bundesverwaltungsgericht ( Federal Administrative Court )
  1 . declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed                   of 29 September 1995 , which was received at the Court
        period all the measures necessary to comply fully with              Registry on 11 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
        the following directives :                                          the case of Siileyman Eker v. Land Baden-Wiirttemberg,
                                                                            parties to the proceedings : ( 1 ) Oberbundesanwalt beim
        — Council Directive 92/45/EEC ( ] ) of 16 June 1992 on              Bundesverwaltungsgericht, ( 2 ) Vertreter des offentlichen
            public health and animal health problems relating to            Interesses bei den Gerichten der allgemeinen Verwaltungs
            the killing of wild game and the placing on the                 gerichtsbarkeit in Baden-Wiirttemberg, on the following
            market of wild-game meat,                                       question:
        — Commission Directive 93/48/EEC ( 2 ) of 23 June                   Does a Turkish worker fulfil the requirements of the first
            1993 setting out the schedule indicating the                    indent of Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1/80 of the
            conditions to be met by fruit plant propagating                 EEC/Turkey Association Council even if during the first
            material and fruit plants intended for fruit                    year of employment he has, with the permission of the
            production,         pursuant     to  Council     Directive      national authorities , worked without interruption but for
            92/34/EEC ,                                                     different employers and wishes to continue employment
                                                                            with his last employer ?
        — Commission Directive 93/49/EEC ( 3 ) of 23 June
             1993 setting out the schedule indicating the


title: Case T-782/14: Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2016 — DF v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Secondment in the interest of the service — Expatriation allowance — Condition set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Recovery of undue payments)

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2016 — DF v Commission
   (Case T-782/14) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Secondment in the interest of the service - Expatriation allowance - Condition set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Recovery of undue payments))
   (2016/C 090/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: DF (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. von Zwehl, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and T. Bohr, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2014, DF v Commission (F-91/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:228), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders DF to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


title: Case T-104/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  22 November 2005  — Degussa Initiators v Commission

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/25

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2005 — Degussa Initiators v Commission
   (Case T-104/04) (1)

   (2006/C 22/47)

      Language of the case: German

   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 30.4.2004.


title: Case C-282/09 P: Appeal brought on 22 July 2009 by Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre Est Europe (CFCMCEE) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 May 2009 in Joined Cases T-405/07 and T-406/07 CFCMCEE v OHIM

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/8

         Appeal brought on 22 July 2009 by Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre Est Europe (CFCMCEE) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 May 2009 in Joined Cases T-405/07 and T-406/07 CFCMCEE v OHIM
   (Case C-282/09 P)
   2009/C 233/13
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre Est Europe (CFCMCEE) (represented by: P. Greffe and L. Paudrat, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

      Form of order sought

   Set aside the judgment delivered on 20 May 2009 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in so far as it dismisses, in part, the appellant’s action and upholds the decisions of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 10 July 2007 (Case R 119/2007-1) and of 12 September 2007 (Case R 120/2007-1) refusing the applications to register PAYWEB CARD (No 003861051) and P@YWEB CARD (No 003861044) as Community trade marks in respect of the following goods and services:

               —

               ‘integrated circuit cards (smart cards), magnetic encoded cards, magnetic or smart identity cards, magnetic or smart payment cards, both credit and debit, coin-operated mechanisms for television sets’ in Class 9;

               —

               ‘real estate affairs, accident insurance underwriting, debt collection agencies, financial analysis, insurance underwriting, real estate appraisal, issue of tokens of value, savings banks, exchanging money, cheque verification, issuing of travellers cheques, financial consultancy, insurance brokerage, housing agents, stocks and bonds brokerage, deposits of valuables, safe deposit services, financial evaluation and assessments (insurance, banking, real estate), financial information (insurance, banking, real estate), financial management, financial information, rent collection, health insurance underwriting, marine insurance underwriting, life insurance underwriting, on-line financial information services, computerised interactive financial information services’ in Class 36;

               —

               ‘communications by computer terminals, sending of telegrams, information about telecommunication, electronic mail, message sending, computer aided transmission of messages and images, satellite transmission’ in Class 38.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant relies, in essence, on two grounds of appeal:
   By its first ground of appeal, it submits that the Court of First Instance failed to fulfil its duty to state reasons — and thereby infringed Article 253 EC and Article 73 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (1) — by failing to criticise the relevant decisions of OHIM for lacking a statement of reasons. In the decisions referred to, the Board of Appeal of OHIM carried out a global assessment of the distinctive character of the word signs PAYWEB CARD and P@YWEB CARD in relation to the goods and services referred to, without stating the reasons for its decision in respect of each of them. However, a global statement of reasons is possible only if the goods and services have a sufficiently direct and specific link to each other to the extent that they form a sufficiently homogenous category or group, which is evidently not the case here, since the goods and services covered by the application for registration fulfil different functions.
   By its second ground of appeal, the appellant challenges the Court of First Instance’s assessment that there is a certain overlap in the scope of the absolute grounds for refusal set out in Article 7(1)(b) to (d) of Regulation No 40/94. According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, each of the grounds for refusal of registration listed in Article 7(1) of that regulation is effectively independent of the others and calls for separate examination. The Court of First Instance thus erred in its application of Article 7(1)(b) in regard to the goods in Class 9 by failing to undertake an actual individual examination of the grounds for refusal laid down by that provision.

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.


title: Cases C-354/01 and C-355/01: References for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof by orders of that court of 3 July 2001 in the cases of 1. AOK Bundesverband, 2. Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen, 3. Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen, 4. Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, 5. Verband der Angestelltenkrankenkassen e.V., 6. Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen, 7. Bundesknappschaft and 8. See-Krankenkasse against Gödecke Aktiengesellschaft and Intersan, Institut für pharmazeutische und klinische Forschung GmbH, respectively

text:
8.12.2001             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 348/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling, by the Bundesfinanzh-            Angestelltenkrankenkassen e.V., 6. Verband der Arbeiter-
of, by order of that court of 17 July 2001, in the case              Ersatzkassen, 7. Bundesknappschaft and 8. See-Krankenkasse
of Hamann International GmbH Spedition and Logistik                  against Gödecke Aktiengesellschaft and Intersan, Institut für
         against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen                      pharmazeutische und klinische Forschung GmbH on the
                                                                     following questions:
                         (Case C-337/01)
                                                                     1.   Are Articles 81 and 82 EC to be interpreted as precluding
                                                                          national rules under which national leading associations
                         (2001/C 348/18)                                  of statutory sickness insurance determine binding
                                                                          maximum amounts for all statutory sickness funds and
                                                                          compensatory sickness funds up to which the funds bear
                                                                          the costs of medicines, where the legislature defines the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    criteria by which the maximum amounts are to be
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                      calculated, providing in particular that the fixed amounts
(Federal Finance Court) of 17 July 2001, received at the Court            must ensure comprehensive and quality-assured treat-
Registry on 10 September 2001, for a preliminary ruling in                ment of insured persons as well as an adequate range of
the case of Hamann International GmbH Spedition and                       therapeutic alternatives, and the determination is subject
Logistik against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen, on the                   to comprehensive review by the courts, which may be
following question:                                                       initiated by both insured persons and affected medicinal
                                                                          product manufacturers?
Is there a removal from customs supervision of re-exported
                                                                     2.   If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
non-Community goods resulting in the incurring of a customs
debt under Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 (1) solely by virtue of the fact that the goods                Does Article 86(2) EC exempt such a determination from
intended for re-export from the customs territory of the                  Articles 81 and 82 EC where the purpose of the
Community were not placed under the external transit pro-                 determination is to safeguard, in the manner provided for
cedure immediately on removal from the customs warehouse?                 in paragraph 35 SGB V, a sickness insurance scheme
                                                                          whose existence was endangered by a significant increase
                                                                          in costs?
(1) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
                                                                     3.   If question 1 is answered in the affirmative and question 2
                                                                          in the negative:
                                                                          Are leading associations such as the defendants liable to
                                                                          claims under Community law for damages and an
                                                                          injunction even where in determining maximum amounts
                                                                          they follow a statutory direction, notwithstanding that
References for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgericht-                 national law does not impose any penalty for refusal to
shof by orders of that court of 3 July 2001 in the cases of               assist in the making of such a determination?
1. AOK Bundesverband, 2. Bundesverband der Betrieb-
skrankenkassen, 3. Bundesverband der Innungskrankenk-
assen, 4. Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krank-
enkassen, 5. Verband der Angestelltenkrankenkassen e.V.,
6. Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen, 7. Bundes-
knappschaft and 8. See-Krankenkasse against Gödecke
Aktiengesellschaft and Intersan, Institut für pharmazeuti-
     sche und klinische Forschung GmbH, respectively
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
               (Cases C-354/01 and C-355/01)                         gericht by order of that court of 2 August 2001 in the
                                                                         case of Nadi Sahin against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
                         (2001/C 348/19)
                                                                                (Case C-369/01)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                       (2001/C 348/20)
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichshof of
3 July 2001, received at the Court Registry on 20 September
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of 1. AOK
Bundesverband, 2. Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen,
3. Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen, 4. Bundesver-             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
band der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, 5. Verband der          European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht


title: Case T-345/05 R II: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2007 — V v Parliament (Application for interim measures — Waiver of the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — Urgency)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/33

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2007 — V v Parliament
   (Case T-345/05 R II)
   (Application for interim measures - Waiver of the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament - Application for suspension of operation - Urgency)
   (2007/C 211/64)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: V (represented by: J. Lofthouse and E. Hayes, Barristers, and M. Monan, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Krück, D. Moore and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for re-examination of the applicant's first application for interim measures, dismissed by order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2007 in Case T-345/05 R V v Parliament, not published in the ECR.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-461/06 P: Order of the Court of 10 July 2007 — AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Action for annulment — Refusal by the Commission to initiate proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/19

         Order of the Court of 10 July 2007 — AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-461/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Action for annulment - Refusal by the Commission to initiate proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 297/32)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant(s): AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE (represented by: T. Asprogerakas-Grivas, Δικηγόρος)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Christoforou and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 5 September 2006 in Case T-242/05 AEPI v Commission — Inadmissibility of an application for annulment of a decision of the Commission not to initiate proceedings against the Hellenic Republic for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 356 of 30.12.2006.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour Administrative, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, by a judgment of 21 January 1999 in the case of Ministre de la Santé v Jeff Erpelding (Case C-16/99)

text:
C 71/22               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.3.1999
    The appellant further observes that the Court of First           the European Communities on 25 January 1999 by the
    Instance misapplied the criteria for determining the             French Republic, represented by Kareen Rispal-Bellanger,
    causal link.                                                     Deputy Director responsible for matters of international
                                                                     economic law and Community law in the Ministry of
                                                                     Foreign Affairs, and FreÂdeÂrik Million, ChargeÂ de Mission,
                                                                     acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8b Boulevard
                                                                     Joseph II.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour
Administrative, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, by a                      The French Republic claims that the Court should:
judgment of 21 January 1999 in the case of Ministre de la
                    SanteÂ v Jeff Erpelding
                                                                     Ð annul the Commission's decision C(1998) 3515 final
                        (Case C-16/99)
                                                                         of 4 November 1998 concerning aid granted to
                        (1999/C 71/38)                                   Nouvelle Filature LainieÁre de Roubaix, inasmuch as it
                                                                         declares the aid granted to be incompatible with the
                                                                         common market;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of 21 January 1999
of the Cour Administrative, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg,               Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
which was received at the Court Registry on 25 January
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministre de la         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
SanteÂ v Jeff Erpelding on the following questions:
May Article 19 of Directive 93/16/EEC (1) to facilitate the          Ð Breach of an essential rule governing the procedure for
free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of                   reviewing grants of State aid: the Commission adopted
their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal                the decision taken by it on the basis of the
qualifications be applied, in a State with provisions on this            information available to it', whereas the Court's
matter laid down by law, in favour of an applicant with a                case-law and the rule which the Commission imposes
qualification obtained in another Member State but not                   on itself, both in its publications (1) and in its
included in the list of specialist training courses contained            decision-making practice, required it to demand the
in Article 7 of the Directive who requests authorization,                Member State concerned, by interim decision
on the basis of the training he has acquired in the other                addressed to that State, to communicate to it the
Member State, to use an equivalent professional title in                 information necessary in order for it to reach its
the host State?                                                          decision.
If not,                                                              Ð Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
Does Article 10 of Directive 93/16/EEC confer on holders             Ð Infringement of Article 92 of the EC Treaty: manifest
of academic titles acquired in another Member State                      error of assessment in declaring the aid in question to
merely the option of using their academic title or, where                be incompatible with the common market on the basis
appropriate, the abbreviation thereof, or, conversely,                   of Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty:
should the text of the directive be interpreted to the effect
that only the academic title in the language of the country              Ð The Commission's arguments in support of its
in which it was awarded may be authorised, to the                            conclusion that the undertaking concerned was
exclusion of equivalent titles formulated in the language                    uncompetitive and, consequently, not viable on a
and according to the terminology of the host State?                          long-term basis, are either wholly irrelevant or
                                                                             deeply flawed. Whilst it is true that provision was
(1) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.                                                made in the 1996 financial year for the investment
                                                                             premium of FF 22 million, that year Ð involving
                                                                             as it did the aforesaid exceptional element Ð
                                                                             could not be used as the basis for assessing the Ð
                                                                             allegedly negative Ð trend shown by the net
                                                                             results in subsequent years, and thus for evaluating
Action brought on 25 January 1999 by the French                              the competitiveness of the undertaking. The
Republic against the Commission of the European                              discontinuance of one of its activities (fancy yarn')
                         Communities                                         in 1998 cannot justify the conclusion that there
                                                                             was a decrease in the competitiveness of all the
                        (Case C-17/99)                                       undertaking's activities, since it concerned a
                        (1999/C 71/39)                                       marginal activity and not, as the Commission
                                                                             claims, an important part of the activities of the
                                                                             new undertaking. Lastly, it was not open to the
An action against the Commission of the European                             Commission to infer from that factor that there
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                       was a lack of competitiveness, unless it is


title: Case C-441/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2015 — Madaus GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremen

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2015 — Madaus GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremen
   (Case C-441/15)
   (2015/C 398/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Bremen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Madaus GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bremen

      Question referred

   Is the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and the statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, to be interpreted as meaning that a raw material with the designation ‘DESTAB Calcium Carbonate 90SE Ultra 250’, used for the manufacture of calcium tablets in the form of simple tablets, effervescent tablets and chewable tablets, consisting of chemically defined calcium carbonate in powder form and, to improve suitability for use in tablets, modified starch, and with a starch content — determined in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 118/2010 of 9 February 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 900/2008 laying down the methods of analysis and other technical provisions necessary for the application of the arrangements for imports of certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products — of less than 5 %, is to be classified under subheading 3824 9097 990?

      (1)  (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2012 L 304, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 March 1999 in Case T-273/97: Pierre Richard v European Parliament (Officials - Recruitment procedure - Application of Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations - Recruitment of a person from the reserve list of an open competition reserved for nationals of the new Member States - Rejection of candidature)

text:
C 265/12                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.9.1999
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 June 1999
                          of 9 March 1999                                  in Case T-277/97: Ismeri Europa Srl v Court of Auditors
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-273/97: Pierre Richard v European Parliament (1)                 (Non-contractual liability — MED programmes — Report
                                                                           of the Court of Auditors — Criticisms concerning the
                                                                                applicant)
(Officials — Recruitment procedure — Application of                                                 (1999/C 265/23)
Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations — Recruitment of a
person from the reserve list of an open competition reserved
for nationals of the new Member States — Rejection of                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
                            candidature)
                                                                           In Case T-277/97: Ismeri Europa Srl, whose registered office is
                                                                           in Rome, represented by Sergio Ristuccia and Gian Luigi
                                                                           Tosato, of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in
                          (1999/C 265/22)                                  Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-
                                                                           Croix v Court of Auditors of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: Jean-Maria Stenier, Jan Inghelram and Paola Giusta)
                                                                           — application under Articles 235 EC and 288, second para-
                                                                           graph, EC (ex Articles 178 and 215) for compensation for
                                                                           damage purportedly suffered by the applicant following criti-
                     (Language of the case: French)                        cisms directed at it by the Court of Auditors in Special
                                                                           Report No 1/96 on the MED programmes (submitted under
                                                                           Article 188C(4), second paragraph, of the EC Treaty) together
                                                                           with the Commission’s replies (OJ 1996 C 240, p. 1) — the
In Case T-273/97, Pierre Richard, official of the European                 Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jae-
Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented by André                   ger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi Judges; A. Mair, Admin-
Lutgen, and, for the oral procedure, by Jeanne Feltgen, of the             istrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 June 1999,
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               the operative part of which is as follows:
their Chambers, 1, Rue Jean-Pierre Brasseur, against European
Parliament (Agent: João Sant’Anna) — application, first, for              1. The action is dismissed.
annulment of the decision of the European Parliament rejecting
the applicant’s candidature for the post advertised by Notice              2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
of Vacancy No 8011 and, second, for annulment of the
appointment of Mrs S. to that post and of the procedure
leading to that appointment — the Court of First Instance                  (1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.
(Fifth Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, and
R. Garcia-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; A. Mair, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 March
1999, in which it:
1. Annuls the procedure for the appointment of Mrs S. to the post              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     of Head of Division A 3 and the Decision of 9 January 1997.
                                                                                of 27 April 1999
2. Annuls the Decisions of 11 February and 23 July 1997 rejecting          in Case T-283/97: Germain Thinus v Commission of the
     the applicant’s candidature and his complaint respectively.                              European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Refusal of promotion — Consideration of
3. Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.                                 comparative merits — Other factors to be taken into
                                                                                consideration — Provision of a statement of reasons)
                                                                                (1999/C 265/24)
(1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-283/97: Germain Thinus, an official of the Com-
                                                                           mission of the European Communities, represented by Jean-
                                                                           Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Françoise Parmentier and,


title: Case F-101/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2006 — Grünheid v Commission (Officials — Time-limit for complaint — Pay slip — Admissibility — Appointment — Classification in the higher career grad e — Articles 25, 26 and 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/33

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2006 — Grünheid v Commission
   (Case F-101/05) (1)

   (Officials - Time-limit for complaint - Pay slip - Admissibility - Appointment - Classification in the higher career grad e - Articles 25, 26 and 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)
   (2006/C 190/61)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Sabine Grünheid (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: Ch. Berardis-Kayser and K. Herrmann, Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of 6 October 2004 by which the Commission established the applicant in her post as an official, inasmuch as that decision incorporates a classification of grade A*8, and the decision of 6 July 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 10 of 14.01.2006 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-388/05 and transferred to the European Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case T-387/07: Action brought on 11 October 2007 — Portuguese Republic v Commission

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/44

         Action brought on 11 October 2007 — Portuguese Republic v Commission
   (Case T-387/07)
   (2007/C 297/90)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: L. Inês Fernandes, S. Rodrigues and A. Gattini, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2007) 3772 of 31 July 2007 reducing the assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund for the global grant ‘SGAIA’ (global grant for local development) pursuant to Decision C(95) 1769 of the European Commission of 28 July 1995;

               —

               an order that the Commission of the European Communities should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Lack of clarity in the statement of reasons. With the expression ‘as shown above’, the defendant makes a generic reference to the analysis summarily carried out and reconstructed in the contested decision. In Chapter 6, ‘Conclusions’, the defendant does not clearly identify what are the laws or provisions infringed by the Portuguese Republic.
   Non-existence of the irregularity detected and infringement of the terms of the agreement concluded by the Commission and the Caixa Geral de Depósitos on 15 November 1995 by the Commission in the contested decision. The irregularity referred to by the Commission in the contested decision is groundless, for no account has been taken of Articles 5 and 6 of the Agreement, which allow the remaining future payments to be put back to 31 December 2001.


title: Case T-246/16: Action brought on 13 May 2016 — Aurora Group Danmark A/S v EUIPO — Retail Distribution ApS (PANZER)

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/31

         Action brought on 13 May 2016 — Aurora Group Danmark A/S v EUIPO — Retail Distribution ApS (PANZER)
   (Case T-246/16)
   (2016/C 279/45)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: Aurora Group Danmark A/S (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: L. Elmgaard Sørensen)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Retail Distribution ApS (Hinnerup, Denmark)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘PANZER’ — European Union trade mark No 12 111 084

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 in Case R 447/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the contested decision in respect of ‘Computers, mobile phones, smart phones and other portable and handheld electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating and reviewing text, data, image and audio files; phone charms; scratch protectors; protective casing and covers for mobile phones, smart phones, computers and other portable and handheld electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating and reviewing text, data, image and audio files; holders, cases and covers for mobile phones, smart phones, computers and other portable and handheld electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating and reviewing text, data, image and audio files; parts, fittings and accessories for mobiles phones, smart phones, computers and other portable and handheld electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating and reviewing text, data, image and audio files’;

               —

               Order the EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Set aside Article 7(1)(b), (c) or (d) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-213/00: Action brought on 11 August 2000 by CMA CGM and thirteen other Liner Shipping Companies against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 316/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.11.2000
The grounds and arguments alleged by the applicant against               —     The Commission’s findings that the Regulations 17 and
the refusal by the Council to grant (partial) access to the                    1017/68 apply to various of the charges and surcharges
requested documents are similar to those invoked in case                       to which the decision relates is vitiated by breach of
T-188/98 (1).                                                                  essential procedural requirements and substantive errors
                                                                               of law. Concretely, the defects in the Commission’s
                                                                               market definition and reasoning vitiate the decision and
(1) OJ C 71, 13.3.99, p. 28.                                                   render it unlawful.
                                                                         —     The decision is vitiated by inadequate and contradictory
                                                                               reasoning in its application of Article 2 and 5 of Regu-
                                                                               lation 1017/68 and of Articles 81(1) and (3) EC to the
                                                                               alleged agreement not to discount the charges and
                                                                               discharges which it finds to fall within the scope of,
                                                                               respectively, Regulation 1017/68 and Regulation 17.
Action brought on 11 August 2000 by CMA CGM and
thirteen other Liner Shipping Companies against the                      —     There should be no basis for the application of Regu-
         Commission of the European Communities                                lation 17 and Regulation 1017/68 in relation to any
                                                                               alleged agreement not to discount levels of Terminal
                                                                               Handling Charge (TCH). Any agreement by the Applicants
                         (Case T-213/00)
                                                                               relating to TCHs and to be subject to Regulation (EEC)
                                                                               No 4056/86 (2).
                         (2000/C 316/54)
                                                                         —     The fines imposed by the Commission are excessive and
                                                                               inappropriate in view of the gravity and duration of the
                   (Language of the case: English)                             alleged infringment, the cooperation of the FETTCSA
                                                                               parties with the Commission and other mitigation factor
                                                                               and the duration of the Commission’s procedure.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 August 2000 by CMA CGM                        —     The Commission’s methodology for setting the levels of
and thirteen other Liner Shipping Companies, represented by                    the fines should be considered as irrational and incoher-
John Pheasant, Catherine Barlen and Matthew Levitt of Lovells                  ent, resulting in discrimination between the FETTCSA
Boesebeck Droste, Brussels and Denis Waelbroeck and Ute                        parties.
Zinsmeister of Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels.
                                                                         (1) Applying rules of competition to transport by rail, road and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  inland waterway (OJEC No L 175, of 23.7.68, p. 1).
                                                                         (2) Laying down detailed rules for the application of Articles 85 and
—     annul the decision in its entirety, or, alternatively, at least        86 of the Treaty to maritime transports (OJEC L 378, of 31.12.86,
      in so far as it was adopted under Regulations 17 and                   p. 4).
      1017/68;
—     in any event, that the fines imposed by Article 4 of the
      decision be annulled or reduced; and
—     that the Commission be ordered to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 16 August 2000 by ‘X’ against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
The applicants in the present case are fourteen of the liner
shipping operators which were party to the FETTCSA, an                                            (Case T-214/00)
agreement between shipping lines operating on the North
Europe/Far East trade. The FETTCSA was entered into on                                            (2000/C 316/55)
5 March 1991 and was terminated on 10 May 1994. The
contested decision finds that the applicants infringed Article 81
EC and Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1917/68 (1), by agree-
ing not to discount from published tariffs for charges and                                   (Language of the case: French)
surcharges, and requires the applicants to refrain from agree-
ments on concerted practices having the same or similar effect.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The decision imposes fines.
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 16 August 2000 by ‘X’, represented
In support of their conclusions, the applicants submit that:             by Joëlle Choucroun, of the Luxembourg Bar.


title: Case C-555/15: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Leiria- Portugal) — Bernard Jean Marie Gabarel v Fazenda Pública Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions — Physiotherapy — Osteopathy

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/8

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Leiria- Portugal) — Bernard Jean Marie Gabarel v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-555/15) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions - Physiotherapy - Osteopathy)
   (2016/C 279/12)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Leiria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bernard Jean Marie Gabarel

      Defendant: Fazenda Pública

      Operative part of the order

   Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a physiotherapist who, in the context of his professional health activity, uses, either indistinctly or complementarily, both therapies characteristic of physiotherapy and therapies characteristic of osteopathy must be exempt from value added tax not only with regard to the former therapies, but also with regard to the latter, where the exclusion of the therapies characteristic of osteopathy from the exercise of paramedical professions for the purposes of an exemption from value added tax exceeds the scope of the discretion granted to Member States by that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) of 14 December 1995 in Case T-90/94: Erik Dan Frederiksen v. European Parliament (No need to give a decision)

text:
No C 64/ 12            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    2 . 3 . 96
2 . orders the applicant to pay the whole of the costs,               Vassilios Akritidis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for
      including those relating to the proceedings for the             service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène
      adoption of interim measures.                                   Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-Adelaide, v. Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities (Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira
f 1 ) OJ No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 .                                    and Bertrand Wägenbaur) — application, first, for
                                                                      annulment of the decision of the Commission, addressed to
                                                                      the applicant by letter of 20 March 1995 , rejecting his
                                                                      application for regrading in grade Bl , step 2 , with
                                                                      retroactive effect from 1 March 1983 , and, second, for an
                                                                      order requiring the Commission to bear the pecuniary
                                                                      effects of such regrading, together with interest thereon —
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            the Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R.
                       ( Second Chamber )                             Schintgen, President, and R. García-Valdecasas and J. Azizi,
                                                                      Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 15 December
                    of 14 December 1995                               1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
in Case T-90/94: Erik Dan Frederiksen v. European
                           Parliament (*)
                                                                      1 . the action is dismissed as inadmissible;
                 (No need to give a decision)
                              96/C 64/26 )
                                                                      2 . the applicant is ordered to pay all of the costs.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
In Case T-90/94: Erik Dan Frederiksen, an official of the
European Parliament, residing in Howald ( Luxembourg),
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi , both
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1
Rue Glesener, against European Parliament ( Agents: Didier
Petersheim and Ezio Perillo ) — application for annulment of
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
Vacancy Notice No 7346 inviting applications for the post
                                                                               OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of Language Adviser ( Grade LA 3 ) in the Danish Translation
Division — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ),                                of 22 December 1995
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, D. Barrington and P.            in Case T-219/95 R, Marie-Thérèse Danielsson and Others
Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                          v. Commission of the European Communities
14 December 1995 , the operative part of which is as
follows :                                                                                ( 96/C 64/28 )
1 . there is no need to give a decision;                                             (Language of the case: English)
2 . the European Parliament is to pay the costs.                      In Case T-2 19/95 R: Marie-Therese Danielsson, Pierre
                                                                      Largenteau and Edwin Haoa, all residing in Tahiti, French
0 ) OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .                                     Polynesia, representd by Phon van den Biesen, of the
                                                                      Amsterdam Bar, and Denis Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                      assisted during the written procedure by Gerrit Betlem and
                                                                      Seven Deimann, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                      at the office of Dei Gréng, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities ( Agents : Richard Wainwright
                                                                      and Thomas Cusack ), supported by French Republic
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      (Agents : Catherine de Salins, Marc Fonbaustier and
                    of 15 December 1995                               Jean-Francois Dobelle ) — application for suspension of the
in Case T-131/95 : Nicolaos Progoulis v. Commission of the            operation of the decision of the Commission of the
                  European Communities ( 1 )                          European Communities of 23 October 1995 regarding
                                                                      French nuclear tests and for an order that the Commission
(Confirmatory act — New and material fact —                           take all measures necessary to preserve and protect the
   Inadmissibility — Costs — Costs unreasonably caused)               applicants' rights under the EAEC Treaty — the President of
                            ( 96/C 64/27 )                            the Court of First Instance made an order on 22 December
                                                                      1995 , the operative part of which is as follows:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      1 . the French Republic is granted leave to intervene in
In Case T-131 /95 : Nicolaos Progoulis, an official of the                 support of the form of order sought by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                     Commission;


title: Case C-329/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2006 — Arthur Wiedemann v Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2006 — Arthur Wiedemann v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-329/06)
   (2006/C 249/07)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Arthur Wiedemann

      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg
   Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the withdrawal of a driving licence by administrative authorities in the State of residence on account of unfitness to drive does not preclude another Member State from granting a driving licence, and that in principle the State of residence must recognise such a driving licence?

               2.

               Are Articles 1(2), 7(1a) in conjunction with Annex III, and 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that there is no obligation on the State of residence to recognise a driving licence which, following the withdrawal of his driving licence by his State of residence, a person has obtained by means of a fraud practised upon the driving licence authorities of the issuing State and without proof that he has become fit to drive again, or who has obtained it by means of colluding with employees of the authorities of the issuing State?

               3.

               Are Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that where its administrative authorities have withdrawn a driving licence the State of residence may temporarily suspend recognition or prohibit the use of a driving licence issued by another Member State while the issuing State is considering whether to withdraw that driving licence, it having been obtained fraudulently?

      (1)  OJ L 237, p 1