title: Case C-492/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) — Essent Belgium NV v Vlaams Gewest, Inter-Energa and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regional legislation requiring the distribution, through the systems located in the region concerned, of electricity produced from renewable energy sources to be free of charge — Different treatment depending on the origin of the green electricity — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Free movement of goods — Directive 2001/77/EC — Articles 3 and 4 — National support mechanisms for the production of green energy — Directive 2003/54/EC — Articles 3 and 20 — Directive 96/92/EC — Articles 3 and 16 — Internal market in electricity — Access to distribution systems on non-discriminatory tariff conditions — Public service obligations — Lack of proportionality)

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) — Essent Belgium NV v Vlaams Gewest, Inter-Energa and Others
   (Case C-492/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regional legislation requiring the distribution, through the systems located in the region concerned, of electricity produced from renewable energy sources to be free of charge - Different treatment depending on the origin of the green electricity - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Free movement of goods - Directive 2001/77/EC - Articles 3 and 4 - National support mechanisms for the production of green energy - Directive 2003/54/EC - Articles 3 and 20 - Directive 96/92/EC - Articles 3 and 16 - Internal market in electricity - Access to distribution systems on non-discriminatory tariff conditions - Public service obligations - Lack of proportionality))
   (2017/C 046/02)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Essent Belgium NV

      Defendants: Vlaams Gewest, Inter-Energa, IVEG, Infrax West, Provinciale Brabantse Energiemaatschappij CVBA (PBE), Vlaamse Regulator van de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt (VREG)

      Interveners: Intercommunale Maatschappij voor Energievoorziening Antwerpen (IMEA), Intercommunale Maatschappij voor Energievoorziening in West- en Oost-Vlaanderen (IMEWO), Intercommunale Vereniging voor Energielevering in Midden-Vlaanderen (Intergem), Intercommunale Vereniging voor de Energiedistributie in de Kempen en het Antwerpse (IVEKA), Iverlek, Gaselwest CVBA, Sibelgas CVBA

      Operative part of the judgment

   The provisions of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, and of Article 3(2) and (8) and Article 20(1) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC, Article 3(2) and (3) and Article 16 of Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity, and Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market, read together, must be interpreted as precluding legislation such as the besluit van de Vlaamse regering tot wijziging van het besluit van de Vlaamse regering van 28 september 2001 (Decision of the Flemish Government amending the Decision of the Flemish Government of 28 September 2001) of 4 April 2003, and the besluit van de Vlaamse regering inzake de bevordering van elektriciteitsopwekking uit hernieuwbare energiebronnen (Decision of the Flemish Government promoting the production of electricity from renewable energy sources) of 5 March 2004, which imposes a scheme for the free distribution of green electricity through the distribution systems in the region concerned, while limiting the benefit of that scheme, in the case of the first decision, solely to green electricity fed directly into those distribution systems by the generating installations and, in the case of the second decision, solely to green electricity fed directly by such installations into the distribution systems in the Member State to which that region belongs.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


title: Case C-305/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/11

         Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-305/09)
   2009/C 256/22
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and E. Righini, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed time-limits, all the measures necessary to withdraw the aid scheme considered unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2005/919/EC of 14 December 2004 on the aid scheme for urgent measures to promote development and correct the trend in public finances (notified on 17 December 2004 under document No C(2004) 4746 (OJ 2005 L 335, p. 39) and to recover from the beneficiaries the aid granted under that scheme, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision and the EC Treaty.

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time limit within which Italian Republic was required to withdraw the aid scheme and recover the unlawfully paid aid expired two months after the date of notification of the decision in question. More than four years later, the Italian authorities have recovered only approximately 65 % of the aid, in respect of which an order for payment has been issued, and have yet to communicate to the Commission the amount of aid paid to beneficiaries who were not entitled in the first place to benefit from scheme.


title: Case T-571/10: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2013 — Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik v OHIM (FŁT-1) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark FŁT-1 — Earlier Community figurative mark FŁT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2013 — Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik v OHIM (FŁT-1)
   (Case T-571/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark FŁT-1 - Earlier Community figurative mark FŁT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 129/32
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. (Kraśnik, Poland) (represented by: J. Sieklucki, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Impexmetal S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: K. Pyszków, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2010 (Case R 1387/2009-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Impexmetal S.A. and Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social No 16 by order of that court of 1 September 1995 in the case of Pedro Burdalo and Others against Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Case C-336/95)

text:
30 . 12 . 95             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 351 /3
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail,              Garanti'a Salarial on the basis that the full length of service is
Liege ( Second Chamber ) by judgment of that court of                     not taken into account but that some of the periods of
10 October 1995             in the case of Institut National              employment are excluded, notwithstanding the fact that
d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Independants                      work was performed uninterruptedly for an undertaking
                     (Inasti ) v. Michel Picard                           which was transferred, without infringing Article 1(1 ) and
                          ( Case C-335 /95 )                              the second subparagraph of Article 3 ( 3 ) of Council
                                                                          Directive 77/ 187/EEC ?
                             ( 95/C 351 /05 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour du
Travail ( Higher Labour Court), Liege ( Second Chamber ) of
10 October 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
on 23 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Institut National d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs                 Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 20 October 1995
Independants ( Inasti ) v. Michel Picard on the following                 in the Case of 1 . Parfums Christian Dior SA, 2 . Parfums
questions :                                                                                Christian Dior BV v. Evora BY
                                                                                ( Case C-337/95 )
1 . Does Article 36 ( 4 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )                                              ( 95/C 351 /07 )
     No 574/72 (') laying down the procedure for
     implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 on the
     application of social security schemes to employed                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     persons, to self-employed persons and to members of                  European Communities by a judgment of the Hoge Raad
     their families moving within the Community lay down a                der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
     general independent rule which applies irrespective of               20 October 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
     compliance with the provisions of Article 36 (1 ), ( 2 ) and         on 26 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
     ( 3 )?
                                                                          1 . Parfums Christian Dior SA, established in Paris,
                                                                          2 . Parfums Christian Dior BV, established at Rotterdam, v.
                                                                          Evora BV on the following questions :
2 . If the reply to the first question is in the negative , must an
     employed or a self-employed person who cannot,
     without prior recognition of entitlement to a pension by             ( a ) where, in proceedings relating to trade marks in one of
                                                                                the    Benelux   countries    in   connection     with    the
     the competent institution of another Member State ( in
     the present case , the Member State of which he is a                        interpretation of the Uniform Benelux Law on Trade
     national ), obtain the recognition of entitlement to a                      Marks, a question relating to the interpretation of the
     pension by the competent institution of his State of                        First Council Directive 89/ 104/EEC ( ] ) of 21 December
     residence , nevertheless submit a claim in the State of                     1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
     residence    in    order      for  benefits  to   be  awarded               relating to trade marks arises, is the highest national
     concurrently in both States ?                                               court or the Benelux Court to be regarded as the court
                                                                                or tribunal of the Member State against whose
                                                                                decisions there is no remedy under national law and
(') O J No L 74 , p . 1 .
                                                                                which is therefore obliged under the third paragraph of
                                                                                Article 1 77 of the EC Treaty to make a reference to the
                                                                                Court of Justice ?
                                                                           ( b ) Is it in keeping with the system of the aforementioned
                                                                                Directive , in particular Articles 5 , 6 and 7 thereof, to
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo                          assume that, where it is a question of the resale of goods
Social No 16 by order of that court of 1 September 1995 in                       which have been put on the market in the Community
the case of Pedro Burdalo and Others against Fondo de                            under a trade mark by the trade mark proprietor or
                           Garantia Salarial
                                                                                with his consent, the reseller is also free to use that trade
                             Case C-336/95 )                                     mark for the purposes of bringing such further
                              ( 95/C 351 /06 )                                   commercialization to the attention of the public ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     (c ) In the event that question ( b ) is answered in the
 European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social                       affirmative, do exceptions exist to that rule ?
 ( Social Court ) No 16 of 1 September 1995 , which was
 received at the Court Registry on 26 October 1995 , for a                 ( d ) In the event that question ( c ) is answered in the
 preliminary ruling in the case of Pedro Burdalo and Others                      affirmative, is there room for an exception where the
 against Fondo de Garanti'a Salarial on the following                             advertising function of the trade mark is endangered by
 question :                                                                      the fact that, as a result of the manner in which the
                                                                                reseller uses the trade mark in order to attract public
 may the legislation or the case-law of a Member State reduce                     attention in that way, he damages the luxurious and
 the benefits which must be awarded by the Fondo de                               prestigious image of the trade mark ?


title: Case T-322/05: Action brought on 18 August 2005 — Carsten Brinkmann v OHIM

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/26

         Action brought on 18 August 2005 — Carsten Brinkmann v OHIM
   (Case T-322/05)
   (2005/C 281/48)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Carsten Brinkmann (Cologne, Germany) (representative: K.Van Bebber, lawyer)

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

      Other party(ies) to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Terra Networks SA (Madrid, Spain)
   Forms of order sought by the claimant(s)

               —

               annulment of Decision No 646/2004 of the Office for Harmonisation of 29 October 2004 in the form of the decision of the Board of Appeal of 10 June 2005 (R 1145/2004-1), together with an order for costs in its favour;

               —

               dismissal of the opposition of Terra Networks SA of 12 April 2002 (Opposition proceedings B 502 676), together with an order for costs in its favour, and

               —

               registration of the word mark ‘Terranus’ (2 061 968), as applied for on 29 January 2001, for goods and services in Class 36 ‘Insurance; financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs’.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: the claimant

      Community trade mark affected: The word mark ‘Terranus’ in respect of goods in Class 36 (Application No 1 739 697).

      Owner of the opposing mark or sign in the opposition proceedings: Terra Networks SA.

      Opposing mark or sign: The figurative mark ‘TERRA’ for goods and services in Class 36 (Community mark No 1 332 691), and Spanish mark No 2 261 483).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas: There is no likelihood of confusion as between the opposing marks.


title: Case T-436/14: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Neka Novin v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Neka Novin v Council
   (Case T-436/14) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 121/35)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Neka Novin Co., Private Joint Stock (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: L. Vidal, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the decision of the Council to maintain the applicant’s name on the list in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), as amended by Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65), and on the list in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), as communicated by a notice of 15 March 2014.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Neka Novin Co., Private Joint Stock to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the Council to bear half of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case C-669/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — ED & F Man Alcohols v Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l'horticulture (Viniflhor) (Protection of the financial interests of the European Union — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Scope ratione materiae — Meaning of ‘detriment to the financial interests of the European Union’ — Individual invitation to tender for the export of vinous alcohol held by intervention agencies — Export of quantities of alcohol outside the European Union after the expiry of the prescribed time-limit — Retention of the performance guarantee — Administrative measures — Administrative penalties — Regulation (EC) No 360/95 — Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 — Retroactive application of less severe penalty)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/17

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — ED & F Man Alcohols v Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l'horticulture (Viniflhor)
   (Case C-669/11) (1)

   (Protection of the financial interests of the European Union - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Scope ratione materiae - Meaning of ‘detriment to the financial interests of the European Union’ - Individual invitation to tender for the export of vinous alcohol held by intervention agencies - Export of quantities of alcohol outside the European Union after the expiry of the prescribed time-limit - Retention of the performance guarantee - Administrative measures - Administrative penalties - Regulation (EC) No 360/95 - Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 - Retroactive application of less severe penalty)
   2012/C 366/28
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ED & F Man Alcohols Ltd

      Defendant: Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l'horticulture (Viniflhor).

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État — Interpretation of Article 5(5) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 360/95 of 22 February 1995 opening individual sales by invitation to tender for the export of vinous alcohol held by intervention agencies (OJ 1995 L 41, p. 14), of Article 91(12) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 of 25 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine, with regard to market mechanisms (OJ 2000 L 194, p. 45), of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1), and of the provisions of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 377/93 of 12 February 1993 laying down detailed rules for the disposal of alcohol obtained from the distillation operations referred to in Articles 35, 36 and 39 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 and held by intervention agencies (OJ 1993 L 43, p. 6) and of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products (OJ 1985 L 205, p. 5) — Individual sales by invitation to tender for the export of vinous alcohol held by intervention agencies for the purpose of an end use as motor fuel — Time-limit for export exceeded by the successful tenderer — Administrative penalties or other measures — Failure likely to prejudice the budget of the European Union

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The failure of an operator to comply with the time-limit for export imposed in respect of quantities of alcohol obtained in an invitation to tender procedure organised by the European Commission, as governed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 360/95 of 22 February 1995 opening individual sales by invitation to tender for the export of vinous alcohol held by intervention agencies, constitutes an ‘irregularity’ within the meaning of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests.

               2.

               The loss in whole or in part of a performance guarantee, such as that provided for in Article 5(5) of Regulation No 360/95, or of a security to ensure export within the time allowed, such as that provided for in Article 91(12) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 of 25 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine, with regard to market mechanisms, is covered by the concept of ‘administrative penalty’ within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95.

               3.

               In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, Article 5(5) of Regulation No 360/95 constitutes the necessary legal basis for the imposition of a penalty consisting of the loss in whole or in part of a performance guarantee.

               4.

               In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to penalise a failure to comply with the time-limit allowed for the export to Brazil of quantities of alcohol obtained by invitation to tender under the provisions of Regulation No 360/95, the national authorities must apply the penalty laid down in Article 5(5) of the latter regulation, and not that laid down in Article 91(12) of Regulation No 1623/2000.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.


title: Case T-538/10: Action brought on 26 November 2010 — Adamowski v OHIM — Fagumit (Fagumit)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/47

         Action brought on 26 November 2010 — Adamowski v OHIM — Fagumit (Fagumit)
   (Case T-538/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/85
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ursula Adamowski (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: D. von Schultz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Fabryka Węży Gumowych i Tworzyw Sztucznych Fagumit Sp. z o.o. (Wolbrom, Poland)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 September 2010 in Case R 1003/2009-1;

               —

               dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity of Community trade mark No 3 093 226;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs incurred in removing the mark from the register, in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, and in the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘Fagumit’ for goods in Classes 12 and 17.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Ursula Adamowski

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Fabryka Węży Gumowych i Tworzyw Sztucznych Fagumit Sp. z o.o.

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: National figurative mark containing the word element ‘FAGUMIT’ for goods in Class 17.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Dismissal of the application for annulment.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and the mark was declared invalid.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) in conjunction with Article 8(4) thereof, since the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal failed to provide legally valid evidence that the company name ‘FAGUMIT’ is actually used; infringement of Article 53(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 8(3) thereof, since the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal effectively agreed to the registration of the trade mark rights associated with the name ‘FAGUMIT’, and infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since the applicant cannot be accused of acting in bad faith at the time when she filed her application for the contested Community trade mark.

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


title: Case C-647/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 6 December 2013 — Office national de l’emploi v Marie-Rose Melchior

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 6 December 2013 — Office national de l’emploi v Marie-Rose Melchior
   (Case C-647/13)
   2014/C 61/07
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour du travail de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Office national de l’emploi

      Defendant: Marie-Rose Melchior

      Question referred

   Do the principle of sincere cooperation and Article 4(3) TEU, on the one hand, and Article 34(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on the other, preclude a Member State, in relation to the issue of qualifying for unemployment benefit, from refusing:

               —

               to take account of working periods as a contract employee in the service of a European Union institution, established in that Member State, in particular where, both before and after the period of employment as a contract employee, work was performed as an employed person in accordance with the legislation of that Member State;

               —

               to treat days of unemployment compensated under the ‘Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities’ in the same way as working days, whereas the days of unemployment compensated in accordance with the legislation of that Member State are treated in that way?


title: Case T-548/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2016 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Café del Sol — Earlier national figurative mark Café del Sol — Failure to submit evidence in the language of the opposition proceedings — Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rules 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rights of the defence)

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/45

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2016 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol)
   (Case T-548/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Café del Sol - Earlier national figurative mark Café del Sol - Failure to submit evidence in the language of the opposition proceedings - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rules 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rights of the defence))
   (2017/C 030/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J.L. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Gastro & Soul GmbH (Hildesheim, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 July 2015 (Case R 2755/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Guiral Broto and Gastro & Soul.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 July 2015 (Case R 2755/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Ramón Guiral Broto and Gastro & Soul GmbH;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders EUIPO and Mr Guiral Broto each to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


title: Case C-48/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — État belge, SPF Finances v NN (L) International SA, formerly ING International SA, successor to the rights and obligations of ING Dynamic SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Free movement of capital — Freedom to provide services — Directive 69/335/EEC — Articles 2, 4, 10 and 11 — Directive 85/611/EEC — Articles 10 and 293 EC — Annual tax on undertakings for collective investment — Double taxation — Penalties applicable to collective investment undertakings governed by foreign law)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — État belge, SPF Finances v NN (L) International SA, formerly ING International SA, successor to the rights and obligations of ING Dynamic SA
   (Case C-48/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Free movement of capital - Freedom to provide services - Directive 69/335/EEC - Articles 2, 4, 10 and 11 - Directive 85/611/EEC - Articles 10 and 293 EC - Annual tax on undertakings for collective investment - Double taxation - Penalties applicable to collective investment undertakings governed by foreign law))
   (2016/C 260/07)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: État belge, SPF Finances

      Defendant: NN (L) International SA, formerly ING International SA, successor to the rights and obligations of ING Dynamic SA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 2, 4, 10 and 11 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State imposing an annual tax on undertakings for collective investment, such as the tax at issue in the main proceedings, which makes undertakings for collective investment governed by foreign law marketing units in that Member State subject to that tax.

               2.

               Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), read, if appropriate, in conjunction with Article 10 EC and Article 293, second indent, EC, must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State imposing an annual tax on UCIs, such as the tax at issue in the main proceedings, which makes UCIs governed by foreign law marketing units in that Member State subject to that tax, provided that that legislation is applied in a non-discriminatory way.

               3.

               Article 56 EC must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State imposing an annual tax on UCIs, such as the tax at issue in the main proceedings, which makes UCIs governed by foreign law marketing units in that Member State subject to that tax.

               4.

               Article 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as Article 162(2) of the Inheritance Tax Code, as amended by the Programme Law of 22 December 2003, by which a Member State imposes a specific penalty, namely the prohibition, ordered by a court, of making future investments of its units in that Member State, on UCIs governed by foreign law in the event of non-compliance by the latter with the obligation to file the annual declaration necessary for the recovery of a tax on UCIs or in the event of non-payment of that tax.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 1995) in Case C-472/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretore di Lecce): Luigi Spano and Others v. Fiat Geotech SpA and Fiat Hitachi Excavators SpA (Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings)

text:
3 . 2 . 96             EN |                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 31 /7
      marketing of vegetable propagating and planting                   2 . The term 'establishment' appearing in Article 1 (1 ) (a) of
      material, other than seed and Council Directive                        the aforesaid directive must be understood as meaning,
      92/34/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the marketing of fruit                   depending on the circumstances, the unit to which the
      plant propagating material and fruit plants intended for               workers made redundant are assigned to carry out their
      fruit production, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil            duties. It is not essential, in order for there to be an
      its obligations under Article 25 of Directive 92/33/EEC                'establishment', for the unit in question to be endowed
      and Article 26 of Directive 92/34/EEC.                                 with a management which can independently effect
                                                                             collective redundancies .
2 . The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                        (>) OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
(>) OJ No C 159, 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Fifth Chamber)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( First Chamber )                                                    of 7 December 1995 )
                                                                        in Case C-472/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                      of 7 December 1995
                                                                        the Pretore di Lecce ): Luigi Spano and Others v. Fiat
    in Case C-449/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                    Geotech SpA and Fiat Hitachi Excavators SpA ( 1 )
           from the 0stre Landsret): Rockfon A/S v.                     (Safeguarding of employees ' rights in the event of transfers
             Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark ( )                                               of undertakings)
(Collective redundancies — Article 1 of Directive                                                    ( 96/C 31 /14 )
75/129/EEC — Definition of 'establishment' — Company
                    forming part of a group)
                            ( 96/C 31 / 13 )                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
                 (Language of the case: Danish)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            In Case C-472/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                        of the EC Treaty by the Pretore di Lecce ( Magistrate's
                                                                        Court, Lecce ) (Italy ) for a preliminary ruling in the
In Case C-449/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177             proceeding pending before that court between Luigi Spano
of the EC Treaty from the 0stre Landsret ( Eastern Regional             and Others and Fiat Geotech SpA and Fiat Hitachi
Court ) ( Denmark ) for a preliminary ruling in the                     Excavators SpA on the interpretation of Council Directive
proceedings pending before that court between Rockfon A/S               77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of
and Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark — on the                         the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of
interpretation of Article 1 of Council Directive 75/129/EEC             employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,
of 17 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of                 businesses or parts of businesses ( OJ 1977, No L 61 , p. 26 )
the Member States relating to collective redundancies ( OJ              — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ) composed of J. -P. Puissochet
1975 , No L 48 , p. 29 ) — the Court ( First Chamber ),                 ( Rapporteur ), acting as President of the Chamber, J. C.
composed of D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ), President of                Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, P. Jann and L. Sevon,
the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevon, Judges; G. Cosmas,                   Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Advocate General; H. A. Ruhl, Principal Administrator, for              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December 1995 , in             7 December 1995, in which it rules :
which it rules :
                                                                        Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the
1 . Article I (1 ) (a) of Council Directive 75/129/EEC of               approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
      17 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of              the safeguarding of employees ' rights in the event of
      the Member States relating to collective redundancies is          transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses
      to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude            is applicable to the transfer of an undertaking which under
      two or more interrelated undertakings in a group,                 Article 2 (5) (c) of Italian Law No 675 of 12 August 1977
      neither or none of which has decisive influence over the          has been declared to be in critical difficulties.
      other or others, from establishing a joint recruitment
      and dismissal department so that, in particular,                   (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
      dismissals on grounds of redundancy in one of the
      undertakings can take place only with that department's
      approval.


title: Case T-239/02: Action brought on 8 August 2002 by Commonfood Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
12.10.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 247/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 8 August 2002 by Commonfood
                                                                          Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
The applicant, a former Commission official, claims that he
was the victim of harassment by the Commission. He alleges,
in that respect, wilful failure to implement a judgment of the                                     (Case T-239/02)
Court of First Instance (1), breach of the obligation to provide
reasons, breach of the principle of equal treatment and of non-
discrimination and breach by the Commission of its duty to                                         (2002/C 247/34)
have regard for the welfare of officials.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
( 1) Case T-214/00 X v Commission [2001] ECR FP-IA-143 ; FP-II-
     663.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 8 August 2002 by Commonfood
                                                                          Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH, of Langen (Ger-
Action brought on 2 August 2002 by Christos Michael                       many), represented by K. Landry and L. Harings, lawyers.
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-234/02)                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (2002/C 247/33)                                  —     annul the Commission’s decision No REC 4/01 of 5 March
                                                                                2002;
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                          —     order the defendant to reimburse to the applicant the
                                                                                costs necessarily incurred in the proceedings.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 August 2002 by Christos
Michael, resident in Brussels, represented by K. Tagaras,                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Lawyer.
                                                                          On the basis of oral information provided by the competent
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               customs authority, to the effect that production of import
                                                                          certificates for the importation of chickens in the context of
—      allow the application;                                             two specific quotas was not necessary, the applicant on 24 July
                                                                          1995 submitted a declaration in respect of the import in
—      annul the contested measures;                                      several consignments of frozen chicken pieces originating in
                                                                          Thailand under CN Code No 0207 41 10. — The competent
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.                              principal customs office initially granted relief from import
                                                                          duties, but subsequently charged the applicant import duties
                                                                          amounting to EUR 113 566,14. The applicant raised an
                                                                          objection to that decision and the national authorities referred
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           the matter to the Commission for a decision. By the contested
                                                                          decision, the Commission found that the import duties were
                                                                          to be entered in the accounts after the event.
This is an action challenging the decision concerning the
appointment of officials to the posts of Deputy Head of Unit
DG FC.A.1 and Head of the Sector ‘Politiques internes et
Agences’ in that unit.                                                    The pleas in law and arguments correspond to those advanced
                                                                          in Case T-309/01 Peter Biegi Nahrungsmittel GmbH v Com-
                                                                          mission (1).
The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 5, 25, 43 and 45
of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equal treatment.
He also claims that there was a manifest error of assessment              (1 ) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002, p. 14.
and misuse of powers in making the contested appointments.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 April 1998 in Case T-367/94: British Coal Corporation v. Commission of the European Communities (ECSC Treaty - Action for annulment of an implied decision of refusal - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
4.7.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 209/39
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           Currall and Rosemary Caudwell), supported by National
                       of 14 May 1998                               Association of Licensed Opencast Operators, having its
                                                                    registered office in Swindon (United Kingdom),
in Case T-21/97: Sofia Goycoolea v. Commission of the               represented by Nicholas Green and Mark Hoskins,
                  European Communities (1)                          Barristers, instructed by David Wilson, Alexander Dowie
(Temporary staff Ð False information given in the                   and Christopher Jobson, Solicitors, with an address for
application for appointment Ð Article 50(1) of the                  service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Gillen,
Conditions of Employment of Other Servants Ð Third                  13 Rue Aldringen Ð application for the annulment of the
subparagraph of Article 5(1) of the Staff Regulations Ð             Commission's implied decision refusing to reject the
Conditions governing the form in which complaints are to            complaint against the applicant lodged by the National
                           be made)                                 Association of Licensed Opencast Operators on 15 June
                                                                    1994 Ð the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
                        (98/C 209/82)                               composed of: V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and A.
                                                                    Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
               (Language of the case: French)                       29 April 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
In Case T-21/97: Sofia Goycoolea, a former member of                1. The application is dismissed.
the temporary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an           2. The applicant shall pay the costs in their entirety,
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                     including those of the intervener.
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian              (1) OJ C 386, 31.12.1994.
Currall and Florence Duvieusart-Clotuche) Ð application
for annulment of the decision of the authority empowered
to conclude contracts of employment within the
Commission of 7 May 1996 terminating the applicant's
contract as a member of the temporary staff Ð the Court
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi,
President, and R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger,                  Action brought on 6 April 1998 by Danagro Adviser A/S,
Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has              Plunkett Foundation and Irish Agri-Food Development
given a judgment on 14 May 1998, in which it:                       Ltd; having formed a joint venture under Danish law
                                                                    entitled Ecord Consortium for Russian Cooperation,
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
1. Dismisses the application.
                                                                                (Case T-60/98)
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                               (98/C 209/84)
(1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.                                                             (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 6 April 1998
                                                                    by Danagro Adviser A/S, established at Glostrup
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           (Denmark), Plunkett Foundation, established at Long
                       of 29 April 1998                             Hanborough (United Kingdom) and Irish Agri-Food
                                                                    Development Ltd; established at Dublin (Ireland), having
in   Case T-367/94: British Coal Corporation                v.
                                                                    formed a joint venture under Danish law entitled Ecord
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                    Consortium for Russian Cooperation, represented by Mia
(ECSC Treaty Ð Action for annulment of an implied                   Declercq and Kurt Haegeman, of the Brussels Bar, with an
decision of refusal Ð Action manifestly lacking any                 address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
                      foundation in law)                            Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
                        (98/C 209/83)
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    Ð annul the Commission's decision of 17 March 1998
In Case T-367/94: British Coal Corporation, having its                  rejecting the applicants' tender, submitted in response
registered office in London, represented by David Vaughan               to an invitation to tender by the European
QC, David Lloyd Jones, Barrister, and Cyrus Mehta,                      Commission for a project financed by the TACIS fund
Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the             entitled: Russia': Promoting Co-operative Ventures by
Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, against                     Independent Farmers', brief title: Independent
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian                  Farmers' Co-ops (Project No FDRUS 9701),


title: Case C-6/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 3 January 2012 — P Oy

text:
               25.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 3 January 2012 — P Oy
   (Case C-6/12)
   2012/C 58/09
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: P Oy

      Other party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the context of an authorisation procedure, such as that in Paragraph 122(3) of the Law on income tax, must the criterion of selectivity in Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as precluding the authorisation of the deduction of losses in the case of changes of ownership if the procedure referred to in the last sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU is not observed?

               2.

               In the interpretation of the criterion of selectivity, in particular in order to determine the reference group, is it necessary to take into account the general rule on the deductibility of established losses in Paragraphs 117 and 118 of the Law on income tax or the provisions concerning changes of ownership?

               3.

               If the criterion of selectivity in Article 107 TFEU is a priori regarded as being fulfilled, may the system resulting from Paragraph 122(3) of the Law on income tax be regarded as justified by the fact that it is a mechanism inherent in the tax system itself which is necessary for example in order to prevent tax evasion?

               4.

               When assessing possible justification and whether the system is a mechanism inherent in the tax system, what importance must be given to the extent of the discretion of the tax authorities? Is it necessary, as regards the mechanism inherent in the tax system itself, that the body applying the law has no discretion and that the conditions for the application of the derogation are set out precisely in the legislation?


title: Case T-186/12: Action brought on 26 April 2012 — Verus v OHIM — Maquet (LUCEA LED)

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/18

         Action brought on 26 April 2012 — Verus v OHIM — Maquet (LUCEA LED)
   (Case T-186/12)
   2012/C 200/38
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Verus Eood (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: S. Vykydal, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maquet SAS (Ardon, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 February 2012 in Case R 67/2011-4 and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs before the Court and the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Maquet SAS

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘LUCEA LED’ for goods in Class 10

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘LUCEO’ for goods in Classes 10, 12 and 28

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was allowed and the opposition was rejected
   Pleas in law:

               —

               infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009,

               —

               infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009,

               —

               infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009,

               —

               infringement of Rule 6(4) of implementing Regulation (EC) 2868/95 in conjunction with decision No EX-05-5 of the President of OHIM,

               —

               infringement of Article 42 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Action brought on 2 December 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-403/97)

text:
C 26/4                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.1.98
to comply with the Directives referred to in the forms of             Action brought on 2 December 1997 by the Commission
order sought by the Commission.                                       of the European Communities against the Federal
                                                                                Republic of Germany
(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 35.                                                             (Case C-403/97)
(2) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 39.
                                                                                (98/C 26/08)
                                                                      An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                      brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Action brought on 25 November 1997 by the Commission                  Communities on 2 December 1997 by the Commission of
 of the European Communities against the Italian Republic             the European Communities represented by Hans
                         (Case C-398/97)                              Stùvlbaek, of its Legal Service, and Karin Schreyer, on
                                                                      secondment to the same service under an exchange with
                           (98/C 26/07)
                                                                      national civil servants, acting as Agents, with an address
                                                                      for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before             de la Cruz, of the same service, 254 Wagner Centre,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   Kirchberg.
25 November 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Francesco Ruggeri Laderchi
and GeÂrard Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as                The Commission claims that the Court should:
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                     Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Kirchberg.                                                                and administrative provisions necessary in order to
                                                                          comply with Council Directive 93/39/EEC of 14 June
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               1993 amending Directives 65/65/EEC, 75/318/EEC
Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,                  and 75/319/EEC in respect of medicinal products (1)
     regulations and administrative provisions necessary to               and Council Directive 93/40/EEC of 14 June 1993
     comply with Commission Directive 94/59/EC of                         amending Directives 81/851/EEC and 81/852/EEC on
     2 December 1994 amending for the third time the                      the approximation of the laws of the Member States
     Annexes to Council Directive 77/96/EEC on the                        relating to veterinary medicinal products (2) Ð with
     examination for Trichinae (Trichinelle spiralis) upon                the exception in each case of Article 1(7) Ð the
     importation from third countries of fresh meat derived               Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
     from domestic swine (1), or in any event by failing to               obligations under Article 4 of Directive 93/39/EEC
     notify those provisions, the Italian Republic has failed             and Article 3 of Directive 93/40/EEC,
     to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
                                                                      Ð order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the                      costs.
     proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive is
                                                                      It follows from the binding nature of directives, as laid
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
                                                                      down in the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC
Member State to which it is addressed, involves an
                                                                      Treaty, that the Member States to which a directive is
obligation on the part of Member States to comply with
                                                                      addressed are obliged to transpose its provisions into
the time-limits for transposition laid down in directives.
                                                                      national law so that they have full practical effect from
The time-limit here passed on 1 January 1995 without the
                                                                      the expiry of the time-limit for transposition at the latest.
Italian Republic having adopted the provisions necessary
                                                                      In this case that time-limit expired on 1 January 1995 and
to comply with the Directive referred to in the forms of
                                                                      the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to adopt the
order sought by the Commission.
                                                                      measures needed.
(1) OJ L 315, 8.12.1994, p. 18.
                                                                      (1) OJ L 214, 24.8.1993, p. 22.
                                                                      (2) OJ L 214, 24.8.1993, p. 31.


Avis juridique important

|

E1996P0005

Request for an advisory opinion by Borgarting lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 21 June 1996 in the case of Ullensaker Kommune and Others v. Nille AS (Case E-5/96)

Official Journal C 350 , 21/11/1996 P. 0007 - 0007

Request for an advisory opinion by Borgarting lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 21 June 1996 in the case of Ullensaker Kommune and Others v. Nille AS (Case E-5/96) (96/C 350/07)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 21 June 1996 of Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 26 June 1996, for an advisory opinion in the case of Ullensaker Kommune (the Municipality of Ullensaker) and Others v. Nille AS, on the following question:Is Article 11 of the EEA Agreement, in conjunction with Article 13, to be understood to mean that it prohibits a municipality from refusing a permission for the retail sale of recorded videocassettes (videograms) on the grounds that such permission should only be granted to shops which can be characterized as specialized dealers (speciality shops) for videograms and/or that expert knowledge should be build up by established dealers?


title: Case C-311/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 14 July 2008 — Societe De Gestion Industrielle (SGI) v Belgian State

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 14 July 2008 — Societe De Gestion Industrielle (SGI) v Belgian State
   (Case C-311/08)
   (2008/C 260/07)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal de Première Instance de Mons
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Societe De Gestion Industrielle

      Defendant: Belgian State
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 43 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with Article 48 and, as appropriate, Article 12 of the Treaty, preclude legislation of a Member State which, like that at issue, results in taxation of a company resident in Belgium on an exceptional or gratuitous advantage which it granted to a company established in another Member State with which the Belgian company is, directly or indirectly, in a relationship of interdependence, whereas in identical circumstances the company resident in Belgium may not be taxed on an exceptional or gratuitous advantage where that advantage is granted to another company established in Belgium with which the Belgian company is, directly or indirectly, in a relationship of interdependence?

               2.

               Does Article 56 of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with Article 48 and, as appropriate, Article 12 of the Treaty, preclude legislation of a Member State which, like that at issue, results in taxation of the company resident in Belgium on an exceptional or gratuitous advantage which it granted to a company established in another Member State with which the Belgian company is, directly or indirectly, in a relationship of interdependence, whereas in identical circumstance the resident Belgian company cannot be taxed on an exceptional or gratuitous advantage where that advantage is granted to another company established in Belgium with which the Belgian company is, directly or indirectly, in a relationship of interdependence?


title: Case T-232/00: Action brought on 4 September 2000 by Chef Revival USA Inc against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
4.11.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 316/35
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               Action brought on 4 September 2000 by Chef Revival
                                                                          USA Inc against the Office for Harmonisation in the
—     annul the whole of the decision                                                               Internal Market
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case T-232/00)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2000/C 316/67)
The decision being contested in the present case is the same as
that at issue in Case T-218/00 Cooperativa Mare Azzurro and
Others (1). The applicants are an undertaking which has been
entrusted with the public service tasks relating to routes                (Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
considered essential for maintaining the links necessary for                   of the Rules of Procedure — application drafted in English)
the transportation of persons and goods, and a Committee
(‘comitato’) created under Article 93(2) whose object is to
coordinate any action necessary to oppose Commission initiat-
                                                                          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
ives and to draw up proposals to relieve the disadvantages
                                                                          Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
burdening business in Venice.
                                                                          European Communities on 4 September 2000 by Chef Revival
                                                                          USA Inc, represented by Neil Jenkins of Bird & Bird, London.
In support of their arguments, the applicants claim that the              Other parties before the Board of Appeal: Massague Marin.
following have been infringed or misapplied:
—     the first paragraph of Article 87 of the Treaty inasmuch
      as there is no threat to competition or trade between               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      Member States, and, specifically so far as concerns
      Adriatica, the applicants point out the non-aid nature of
      the reduction of and exemption from social security                 —     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
      contributions in question, in view of the services provided               Office of 26 June 2000, as corrected on 6 July 2000 in
      by it;                                                                    case R 181/1999-3;
—     the second and third paragraph of Article 87 so far as
      concerns:                                                           —     order the Office to reject Opposition No. B 4392; and
      (a)    the misclassification of the reduction and exemption
             in question as regional aid;                                 —     order the Office to pay the applicant’s costs.
      (b) the erroneous application of the principles relating
             to employment aid; and
      (c)    the misassessment of its compatibility with the              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
             common market in cases other than those listed in
             the operative part.
—     the third paragraph of Article 87 so far as concerns the            Applicant of the Com-          Chef Revival USA Inc.
      failure to assess and provide for special cases in respect          munity trade mark:
      of undertakings other than those under Articles 1, 3 and
      4 of the operative part, in relation to which the reduction         Trade mark concerned:          Figurative mark (Chef) — Appli-
      and exemption in question could be categorised as lawful                                           cation No. 77974 for certain
      and compatible with the common market.                                                             goods in classes 8, 21 and 25
—     Article 253 of the Treaty in so far as concerns the
                                                                          Proprietor of an oppos-        Massague Marin
      characterisation of the reduction and exemption in
                                                                          ing trade mark or sign:
      question as State aid and their being deemed incompatible
      with the common market.
                                                                          Opposing trade mark or         National figurative mark (Cheff)
Finally, the applicants claim that the order for recovery of the          sign:                          for the same products of class 25
aid is unlawful.
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-          Rejection of the opposition
                                                                          sition Division:
(1) Not yet published.
                                                                          Decision of the Board of       Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                          Appeal:                        Opposition Division
 ---pagebreak--- 4.11.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 316/35
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               Action brought on 4 September 2000 by Chef Revival
                                                                          USA Inc against the Office for Harmonisation in the
—     annul the whole of the decision                                                               Internal Market
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case T-232/00)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2000/C 316/67)
The decision being contested in the present case is the same as
that at issue in Case T-218/00 Cooperativa Mare Azzurro and
Others (1). The applicants are an undertaking which has been
entrusted with the public service tasks relating to routes                (Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
considered essential for maintaining the links necessary for                   of the Rules of Procedure — application drafted in English)
the transportation of persons and goods, and a Committee
(‘comitato’) created under Article 93(2) whose object is to
coordinate any action necessary to oppose Commission initiat-
                                                                          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
ives and to draw up proposals to relieve the disadvantages
                                                                          Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
burdening business in Venice.
                                                                          European Communities on 4 September 2000 by Chef Revival
                                                                          USA Inc, represented by Neil Jenkins of Bird & Bird, London.
In support of their arguments, the applicants claim that the              Other parties before the Board of Appeal: Massague Marin.
following have been infringed or misapplied:
—     the first paragraph of Article 87 of the Treaty inasmuch
      as there is no threat to competition or trade between               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      Member States, and, specifically so far as concerns
      Adriatica, the applicants point out the non-aid nature of
      the reduction of and exemption from social security                 —     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
      contributions in question, in view of the services provided               Office of 26 June 2000, as corrected on 6 July 2000 in
      by it;                                                                    case R 181/1999-3;
—     the second and third paragraph of Article 87 so far as
      concerns:                                                           —     order the Office to reject Opposition No. B 4392; and
      (a)    the misclassification of the reduction and exemption
             in question as regional aid;                                 —     order the Office to pay the applicant’s costs.
      (b) the erroneous application of the principles relating
             to employment aid; and
      (c)    the misassessment of its compatibility with the              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
             common market in cases other than those listed in
             the operative part.
—     the third paragraph of Article 87 so far as concerns the            Applicant of the Com-          Chef Revival USA Inc.
      failure to assess and provide for special cases in respect          munity trade mark:
      of undertakings other than those under Articles 1, 3 and
      4 of the operative part, in relation to which the reduction         Trade mark concerned:          Figurative mark (Chef) — Appli-
      and exemption in question could be categorised as lawful                                           cation No. 77974 for certain
      and compatible with the common market.                                                             goods in classes 8, 21 and 25
—     Article 253 of the Treaty in so far as concerns the
                                                                          Proprietor of an oppos-        Massague Marin
      characterisation of the reduction and exemption in
                                                                          ing trade mark or sign:
      question as State aid and their being deemed incompatible
      with the common market.
                                                                          Opposing trade mark or         National figurative mark (Cheff)
Finally, the applicants claim that the order for recovery of the          sign:                          for the same products of class 25
aid is unlawful.
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-          Rejection of the opposition
                                                                          sition Division:
(1) Not yet published.
                                                                          Decision of the Board of       Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                          Appeal:                        Opposition Division


title: Case T-567/14: Action brought on 1 August 2014  — Group OOD v OHIM — Kosta Iliev (GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL)

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/18

         Action brought on 1 August 2014 — Group OOD v OHIM — Kosta Iliev (GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL)
   (Case T-567/14)
   2014/C 372/23
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Group OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: Dragia Dragiev and Andrey Andreev, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kosta Iliev (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: Zlatarevi Patent and Trade Mark Bureau)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision R 1587/2013-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2014 on the basis of Article 65(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

               —

               order OHIM and, in the case of its intervention in the proceedings before the Court, the party concerned to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Kosta Iliev.

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative Community trade mark with the word elements ‘GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL’ for goods and services in classes 35, 39 and 43.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Group OOD.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: unregistered trade mark comprising substantive rights over a sign with the word elements ‘Group company’.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal as unfounded.

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (the content of the Bulgarian law was incorrectly examined of the Board’s own motion);

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (there was no comprehensive and correct evaluation of the evidence submitted);

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (the evidence submitted and legal arguments were not examined in relation to the conditions laid down in that provision).


title: Case C-552/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mönchengladbach (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2011 — Gisbert Thöne v MF Global UK Ltd and Frank Kucksdorf

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mönchengladbach (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2011 — Gisbert Thöne v MF Global UK Ltd and Frank Kucksdorf
   (Case C-552/11)
   2012/C 65/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Mönchengladbach

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gisbert Thöne

      Defendant: MF Global UK Ltd and Frank Kucksdorf
   This Case was removed from the Register of the Court by Order of the Court of 8 December 2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 25 April 2002 In Joined Cases C-418/00 and C-419/00: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources — Inspection of fishing vessels and monitoring of catches (Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83, Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87, Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 3760/92 and Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93) — Late suspension of fishing (Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2241/87 and Article 21(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2847/93) — Absence of penal or administrative action against those responsible for exceeding quotas (Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 and Article 31 of Regulation No 2847/93))

text:
C 144/10                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          15.6.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Third Chamber)                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                25 April 2002
                            30 April 2002
                                                                           In Joined Cases C-418/00 and C-419/00: Commission of
in Case C-400/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                       the European Communities v French Republic (1)
the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto): Club-Tour,
Viagens e Turismo SA v Alberto Carlos Lobo Gonçalves
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
       Garrido, Third party: Club Med Viagens Ld.ª (1)
                                                                           Community system for the conservation and management
                                                                           of fishery resources — Inspection of fishing vessels and
(Directive 90/314/EEC — Package travel, package holidays                   monitoring of catches (Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC)
and package tours — Definition of ‘package travel’ and ‘pre-               No 170/83, Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87,
                              arranged’)                                   Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 3760/92 and Article 2 of
                                                                           Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93) — Late suspension of fishing
                                                                           (Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2241/87 and
                           (2002/C 144/14)                                 Article 21(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2847/93) — Absence
                                                                           of penal or administrative action against those responsible
                                                                           for exceeding quotas (Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                87 and Article 31 of Regulation No 2847/93))
                                                                                (2002/C 144/15)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-400/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                                     in the European Court Reports)
EC by the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto (Portugal) for
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Club-Tour, Viagens e Turismo SA and Alberto
Carlos Lobo Gonçalves Garrido; Third party: Club Med Viagens               In Joined Cases C-418/00 and C-419/00, Commission of the
Ld.ª, on the interpretation of Article 2(1) of Council Directive           European Communities, (Agents: T. van Rijn and B. Mongin) v
90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package                      French Republic, (Agents: C. Vasak and G. de Bergues):
holidays and package tours, the Court (Third Chamber),                     Application for a declaration that:
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-
mann (Rapporteur) and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tiz-               —     by failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules for
zano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                         the utilisation of the quotas allocated to it for the 1991 to
judgment on 30 April 2002, in which it:                                          1994 fishing years (Case C-418/00) and the 1995 and
                                                                                1996 fishing years (Case C-419/00),
1.    The term ‘package’ used in Council Directive 90/314/EEC of           —     by failing to ensure compliance with the Community
      13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package               rules on the conservation of species through monitoring
      tours, must be interpreted so as to include holidays organised             of fishing activities, and through appropriate inspection
      by travel agents, at the request of and in accordance with the             of landings and catch records,
      specifications of a consumer or limited group of consumers.
                                                                           —     by not provisionally prohibiting fishing by vessels flying
                                                                                the French flag or registered in French territory when the
2.    The term ‘pre-organised combination’ used in Article 2(1) of               catches landed were deemed to have exhausted the
      Directive 90/314 must be interpreted so as to include                      corresponding quota and by finally prohibiting fishing
      combinations of tourist services put together at the time when             only when the corresponding quota had been consider-
      the contract is concluded between the travel agency and the                ably exceeded, in the 1991 to 1994 fishing years (Case
      consumer.                                                                  C-418/00), and the 1995 and 1996 fishing years (Case
                                                                                C-419/00), and
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.
                                                                           —     by failing to take penal or administrative action against
                                                                                any master of a vessel or other person responsible for
                                                                                fishing after a prohibition had been imposed, in the
                                                                                1991 to 1994 fishing years (Case C-418/00), and the
                                                                                1995 and 1996 fishing years (Case C-419/00),
 ---pagebreak--- 15.6.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 144/11
the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                     and by finally prohibiting fishing only when the quota had been
Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of                              considerably exceeded, the French Republic has failed to fulfil
25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for the                            its obligations under Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation
conservation and management of fishery resources (OJ 1983                          No 2241/87, as regards the 1991 to 1993 fishing years, and
L 24, p. 1), Articles 1 and 11(1) and (2) of Council Regulation                    under Article 21(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2847/93, as
(EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain                              regards the 1994 to 1996 fishing years;
control measures for fishing activities (OJ 1987 L 207, p. 1),
Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of                             By failing to take penal or administrative action against any
20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for                               master of a vessel or other person responsible for fishing after a
fisheries and aquaculture (OJ 1992 L 389, p. 1) and Articles 2,                    prohibition had been imposed, the French Republic has failed
21(1) and (2) and 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93                        to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(2) of Regulation
of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable                        No 2241/87, as regards the 1991 to 1993 fishing years, and
to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1) (Case                         under Article 31 of Regulation No 2847/93, as regards the
C-418/00), and under Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3760/92                         1994 to 1996 fishing years;
and Articles 2, 21 and 31 of Regulation No 2847/93, in
conjunction with Council Regulation (EC) No 3362/94 of                       2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
20 December 1994 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups
of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1995 and certain
conditions under which they may be fished (OJ 1994 L 363,
                                                                             (1) OJ C 4 of 6.1.2001.
p. 1), and Council Regulation (EC) No 3074/95 of 22 Decem-
ber 1995 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish
stocks, the total allowable catches for 1996 and certain
conditions under which they may be fished (OJ 1995 L 330,
p. 1) (Case C-419/00),
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
The Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of                                          (Fifth Chamber)
the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet,
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 25 April 2002, in which it:                                                     4 March 2002
                                                                             in Case C-175/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen): Marie-Josée Verwayen-
                                                                                Boelen v Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening (1)
1.    Declares that, as regards the 1991 and 1996 fishing years, by          (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer to the
      failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules for the            question admitting of no reasonable doubt — Article 67(3)
      utilisation of the quotas allocated to it and by failing to ensure     of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Aggregation of periods
      compliance with the Community rules on the conservation of             of insurance or employment for the purpose of acquisition of
      species through monitoring of fishing activities and through           a right to unemployment benefits — Requirement that
      appropriate inspection of landings and catch records, the French       periods of insurance or employment be completed lastly in
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of    accordance with the legislation under which the benefits are
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983                                                 claimed)
      establishing a Community system for the conservation and
      management of fishery resources, Article 1(1) of Council
      Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing                                         (2002/C 144/16)
      certain control measures for fishing activities, Article 9(2) of
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992
      establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
      and Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of
      12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to
      the common fisheries policy;                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
      By not provisionally prohibiting fishing by vessels flying the
      French flag or registered in French territory when the catches         In Case C-175/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      landed were deemed to have exhausted the corresponding quota,          EC by the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Belgium) for a preliminary


title: Case C-469/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 22 October 2012 — Krejci Lager & Umschlagbetriebs GmbH v Olbrich Transport und Logistik GmbH

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 22 October 2012 — Krejci Lager & Umschlagbetriebs GmbH v Olbrich Transport und Logistik GmbH
   (Case C-469/12)
   2013/C 26/35
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Handelsgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Krejci Lager & Umschlagbetriebs GmbH

      Defendant: Olbrich Transport und Logistik GmbH

      Question referred

   Is a contract for the storage of goods a contract for the ‘provision of services’ within the meaning of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.