title: Case C-169/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret by order of that Court of 1st May 2002 in the case of Dansk Postordreforening against Skatteministeriet

text:
29.6.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 156/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret                  Appeal brought on 7 May 2002 by Schlüsselverlag J.S.
by order of that Court of 1st May 2002 in the case of                     Moser Gesellschaft m.b.H., J. Wimmer Medien GmbH
     Dansk Postordreforening against Skatteministeriet                    & Co KG, Styria Medien AG, Zeitungs- und Verlags-
                                                                          Gesellschaft m.b.H., Eugen Ruß Vorarlberger Zeitungs-
                                                                          verlag und Druckerei Gesellschaft mbH, ‘Die Presse’
                                                                          Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. and ‘Salzburger Nachrichten’
                          (Case C-169/02)                                 Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. & Co KG against the order
                                                                          made on 11 March 2002 by the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-3/
                                                                          02 between Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser Gesellschaft m.b.H.,
                         (2002/C 156/19)                                  J. Wimmer Medien GmbH & Co KG, Styria Medien AG,
                                                                          Zeitungs- und Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H., Eugen Ruß
                                                                          Vorarlberger Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei Gesellschaft
                                                                          mbH, ‘Die Presse’ Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. and ‘Salz-
                                                                          burger Nachrichten’ Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. & Co KG
                                                                                and Commission of the European Communities
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                           (Case C-170/02 P)
European Communities by order of the Østre Landsret (Eastern
Regional Court) of 1st May 2002, received at the Court                                            (2002/C 156/20)
Registry on 6 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Dansk Postordreforening against Skatteministeriet on the
following questions:
                                                                          An appeal against the order made on 11 March 2002 by the
                                                                          Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third
1.    Is Article 13(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive (Council          Chamber) in Case T-3/02 between Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser
      Directive 77/388/EEC) (1) to be interpreted as meaning:             Gesellschaft m.b.H., J. Wimmer Medien GmbH & Co KG, Styria
                                                                          Medien AG, Zeitungs- und Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H., Eugen
                                                                          Ruß Vorarlberger Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei Gesellschaft
                                                                          mbH, ‘Die Presse’ Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. and ‘Salzburger
      (i)   that a Member State has the right to levy VAT on              Nachrichten’ Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. & Co KG and Com-
            the conveyance by the public postal services of COD           mission of the European Communities (1) was brought before
            letters and parcels to private persons where the              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 May
            Member State has removed such items of mail from              2002 by Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser Gesellschaft m.b.H., J.
            the exclusive right and obligation to convey mail             Wimmer Medien GmbH & Co KG, Styria Medien AG, Zeitungs-
            under the Member State’s national postal legislation,         und Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H., Eugen Ruß Vorarlberger
            or                                                            Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei Gesellschaft mbH, ‘Die Presse’
                                                                          Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. and ‘Salzburger Nachrichten’ Ver-
                                                                          lags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. & Co KG, represented by Dr Michael
      (ii) is a Member State required not to levy VAT on such             Krüger, Rechtsanwalt, Linz.
            items of mail?
                                                                          The appellants claim that the Court should:
2.    If neither Question 1(i) or 1(ii) can be answered unequivo-         —     Set aside the contested order and give judgment in
      cally in the affirmative, what criteria should be used to                 accordance with the form of order sought in the appli-
      establish whether a Member State has a right, under the                   cation; in the alternative, set aside the contested order
      circumstances set out in Question 1(i), to levy VAT on                    and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance; in
      the conveyance of COD letters and parcels to private                      either case, order the defendant Commission to pay the
      individuals or is it required not to levy VAT on such                     costs.
      items of mail?
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the              —     Incompleteness of findings of fact
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                  The Court of First Instance took the Commission’s
    basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).                          statement that the letters of 12 July 2001 and 3 Septem-
                                                                                ber 2001 ‘give the opinion of the merger control
                                                                                directorate and are not binding on the European Com-
                                                                                mission’ as the basis for its legal assessment without
                                                                                including the content of that statement in its findings of
                                                                                fact.


title: Case C-252/01: Action brought on 29 June 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
C 245/10               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.9.2001
Appeal brought on 2 July 2001 by Mario Costacurta                      Action brought on 29 June 2001 by the Commission
against the order delivered on 7 June 2001 by the Second               of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                                                Belgium
Communities in Case T-328/00 between Mr Costacurta
    and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-252/01)
                        (Case C-251/01 P)
                                                                                (2001/C 245/19)
                         (2001/C 245/18)
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 June
An appeal against the order delivered on 7 June 2001 by the            2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European          represented by H. van Lier, acting as Agent, assisted by
Communities in Case T-328/00 between Mr Costacurta and                 J. Stuyck, advocaat.
the Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
2 July 2001 by Mario Costacurta, represented by Mr Petit,              The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.
                                                                       1.    Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 226 EC, declare
                                                                             that:
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             —     by failing, in respect of a contract to perform
—     find the present appeal admissible;                                          services involving coastal surveillance by means of
                                                                                aerial photography, to place a notice in the Official
—     find the appeal well founded as to the substance;                            Journal of the European Communities, as required under
                                                                                Directive 92/50/EEC (1) relating to the coordination
—     order, if the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice                     of procedures for the award of public service
      allow it, the present appeal to be joined to the appeal                      contracts; and
      against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second
      Chamber) of 7 June 2001 in Case T-328/00 concerning                    —     by unjustifiably awarding the contract in question
      the same dispute and lodged this day;                                        through application of a negotiated procedure with-
                                                                                out prior publication of a notice,
—     set aside the order delivered by the Court of First Instance
      (Second Chamber) of 7 June 2001 in Case T-328/00
      Costacurta v Commission;                                               the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                             under that directive, in particular Articles 11(3) and 15(2)
—     make a decision as to how Case T-328/00 Costacurta v                   thereof;
      Commission is to proceed in accordance with Article 54
      of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice;               2.    order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
—     order the Commission of the European Communities
      already to pay the costs of the interlocutory proceedings
      and of the present appeal;
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
—     reserve the costs as to the substance; find, none the less,
      that Article 88, rather than Article 87(2), of the Rules of
      Procedure of the Court of First Instance are applicable;         According to the Commission, the Belgian Government has
                                                                       failed to demonstrate that performance of the services in
                                                                       question involves special security measures, since undertakings
—     reserve to the appellant all other rights, dues, pleas and       holding the required military security certificate may perform
      actions.                                                         the contract without thereby taking any such special security
                                                                       measures into account.
Pleas in law an main arguments
                                                                       Although the contract in question involves services relating to
                                                                       aerial photography which, considered in se, ought to come
                                                                       under the [United Nations Central Product Classification] CPC
The pleas and main arguments are the same as those in Case
                                                                       Category No 87504.1 as ‘specialty photography services’, it
C-250/01 P.
                                                                       covers a much wider remit, closely connected to the monitor-
                                                                       ing programme established by the administration for the
                                                                       coastal zone and which, with a view to guaranteeing the
 ---pagebreak--- 1.9.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 245/11
security of the coast and of its inhabitants, is designed to               Pleas in law and main arguments
acquire an appropriate insight into the dynamics of the coastal
area. The contract thus comes under the categories indicated
by CPC Reference No 86753 (‘surface surveying services’) and
No 86754 (‘map making services’), and thus under the services              The third paragraph of Article 249 EC states that a directive is
indicated in Category No 12 in Annex I A to the directive:                 binding, as to the result to be achieved, on each Member State
‘architectural services; engineering services and integrated               to which it is addressed.
engineering services; urban planning and landscape architec-
tural services; related scientific and technical consulting services ...’
Pursuant to Article 8 of the directive, contracts having as their          The first paragraph of Article 10 EC states that Member States
object services listed in Annex I A are to be awarded in                   are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
accordance with the provisions of Titles III to VI (which                  specific, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of
include the placing of an indicative notice and a notice in the            the Treaty or resulting from actions taken by the institutions
Official Journal and the following of an open or restricted                of the Community.
procedure).
                                                                           This obligation deriving directly from the Treaty is repeated
Finally, the Commission is unable to accept the invocation of              expressly in Article 23 of Directive 96/48/EC, according to
Article 11(3(b) of the directive, in particular the technical
                                                                           which the Member States are to amend and adopt their laws,
reasons referred to therein. It is extremely unlikely that there           regulations and administrative provisions so as to authorise
would, in other Member States with a seacoast, not be any                  the use of constituents of interoperability of the trans-
undertakings in a technical and financial position to perform
                                                                           European high-speed rail system and the putting into service
the contract.                                                              and operation of subsystems which comply with the directive,
                                                                           no later than 30 months after entry into force of the directive.
                                                                           They are to inform the Commission thereof forthwith. In this
(1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.                                                   connection, it should be emphasised that even in the absence
                                                                           of the technical specifications for interoperability under Chap-
                                                                           ter II of the directive, Chapters III and IV of the directive are
                                                                           fully in force and applicable.
                                                                           Finland refers to the decision of the Ministry of Transport of
                                                                           3 March 1999, in which the ministry decided to designate
                                                                           Ratahallintokeskus (Rail Administration Centre) as the control
Action brought on 3 July 2001 by Commission of the                         body under Article 20 of Directive 96/48/EC on the interop-
    European Communities against Republic of Finland                       erability of the trans-European high-speed rail system. The
                                                                           Ministry of Transport also invited the Ratahallintokeskus to
                                                                           take account when making technical decisions of the technical
                          (Case C-254/01)                                  specifications of interoperability adopted on the basis of the
                                                                           above directive.
                         (2001/C 245/20)
                                                                           Apart from that decision, Finland has not notified any other
                                                                           legislative or administrative measures on the basis of which
An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before               the Commission could find that Finnish legislation together
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 July                 with the administrative measures in force authorise the use of
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        constituents of interoperability of the trans-European high-
represented by M. Huttunen and M. Wolfcarius, with an                      speed rail system and the putting into service and operation of
address for service in Luxembourg.                                         subsystems which comply with the directive. Finland has
                                                                           notified only that it is preparing an overall recasting of railway
                                                                           legislation and that the aim is to include in the amendments
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                adequate provisions for implementation of the directive on
                                                                           high-speed rail systems.
1.    Declare that the Republic of Finland has failed to adopt
      the laws, regulations or administrative provisions required
      to comply with Directive 96/48/EC (1) and has thus failed            (1) Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperabi-
      to fulfil its obligations under the directive, other than                lity of the trans-European high-speed rail system (OJ L 235 of
      the obligation to notify the responsible body under                      17.9.1996, p. 6).
      Article 20(1);
2.    Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.


title: Case C-538/12: Action brought on 26 November 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/38

         Action brought on 26 November 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-538/12)
   2013/C 26/71
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by P. Hetsch, A. Tokár and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to transpose Directive 2009/81/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC (2) and 2004/18/EC, (3) or in any case by failing to notify the Commission of those measures, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

               —

               order the Republic of Slovenia, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to make a daily penalty payment of EUR 7 038,72, calculated from the day on which judgment shall be given in these proceedings;

               —

               order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired on 21 August 2011.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 216, p. 76.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


title: Case C-218/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 15 May 2009 — I. SGS Belgium NV v Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau, Firme Derwa NV and Centraal Beheer Achmea NV and II. Firme Derwa NV and Centraal Beheer Achmea NV v SGS Belgium NV and Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 15 May 2009 — I. SGS Belgium NV v Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau, Firme Derwa NV and Centraal Beheer Achmea NV and II. Firme Derwa NV and Centraal Beheer Achmea NV v SGS Belgium NV and Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau
   (Case C-218/09)
   2009/C 220/31
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

               I.

               SGS Belgium NV
               v
               Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau
               Firme Derwa NV
               Centraal Beheer Achmea NV

               II.

               Firme Derwa NV
               Centraal Beheer Achmea NV
               v
               SGS Belgium NV
               Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau

      Question referred

   Must the term ‘force majeure’ in Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1) of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products be interpreted as meaning that damage to beef while being transported in the correct packaging and in a refrigerated container continuously maintained at the prescribed temperature, in principle constitutes force majeure?

      (1)  OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1.


title: Case C-152/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin (Germany)) — André Grootes v Amt für Landwirtschaft Parchim (Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Single payment scheme — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Calculation of payment entitlements — Article 40(5) — Farmers who were under agri-environmental commitments during the reference period — Article 59(3) — Regional implementation of the single payment scheme — Article 61 — Different per-unit values for hectares under permanent pasture and for any other hectare eligible for aid)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin (Germany)) — André Grootes v Amt für Landwirtschaft Parchim
   (Case C-152/09) (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes - Single payment scheme - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Calculation of payment entitlements - Article 40(5) - Farmers who were under agri-environmental commitments during the reference period - Article 59(3) - Regional implementation of the single payment scheme - Article 61 - Different per-unit values for hectares under permanent pasture and for any other hectare eligible for aid)
   2011/C 13/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: André Grootes

      Defendant: Amt für Landwirtschaft Parchim

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin — Interpretation of Article 40(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1) — Circumstances in which farmers who were under agri-environmental commitments during the reference period are entitled to request that the reference amount be calculated on the basis of the year preceding the year of participation in those commitments

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 40(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 319/2006 of 20 February 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that where, in the Member State in question, different per-unit values were fixed for hectares under pasture and for any other hectare eligible for aid under Article 61 of that regulation, a farmer who, on the reference date specified in that article, was under agri-environmental commitments pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside, forming part of seamlessly ongoing agri-environmental commitments which had the objective of converting arable lands into permanent pastureland, is entitled to request that the entitlements referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 59(3) of Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended by Regulation No 319/2006, be calculated on the basis of the per-unit values fixed for eligible hectares other than hectares under pasture;

               2.

               Article 40(5) of Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended by Regulation No 319/2006, read in conjunction with Article 61 of that regulation, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that only where there is a causal link between the change of use of an area from arable land to permanent pastureland and participation in an agri-environmental measure may the fact that that area was being used as permanent pastureland, on the reference date specified in Article 61 of that regulation, as amended, be disregarded for the purposes of calculating payment entitlements;

               3.

               Article 40(5) of Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended by Regulation No 319/2006, read in conjunction with Article 61 of that regulation, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that its application is not contingent on the farmer who makes the single payment application also being the person who introduced the change of use of the area in question.

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.07.2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 1997 in Case C-207/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Equal treatment for men and women - Prohibition of nightwork)

text:
C 55/2                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.2.98
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                3. orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                         (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 247, 24.8.1996.
                      of 4 December 1997
in   Case     C-207/96: Commission of the            European
              Communities v. Italian Republic (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
Equal treatment for men and women Ð Prohibition of
                            nightwork)
                           (98/C 55/02)                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 4 December 1997
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     in   Case   C-225/96: Commission of the              European
                                                                                Communities v. Italian Republic (1)
                                                                     (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
                                                                     Directive 79/923/EEC Ð Quality required of shellfish
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                waters)
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (98/C 55/03)
In Case C-207/96: Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Marie Wolfcarius and Enrico
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Altieri) v. Italian Republic (Agent: Professor Umberto
Leanza, assisted by Oscar Fiumara) Ð application for a
declaration that, by not adopting within the prescribed
period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary in order to comply with Council Directive 76/
207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the principle of equal treatment for men and women as                         published in the European Court Reports)
regards access to employment, vocational training and
promotion, and working conditions (OJ L 39, 14.2.1976,
p. 40), and by retaining in national law rules prohibiting
nightwork by women, contrary to Article 5 of that
Directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its             In Case C-225/96: Commission of the European
obligations under Community law Ð the Court (Fifth                   Communities (Agents: initially by Antonio Aresu, and
Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the                 subsequently by Paolo Stancanelli) v. Italian Republic
First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,             (Agent: Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by Pier
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward                           Giorgio Ferri) Ð application for a declaration that Ð by
(Rapporteur), P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; C. O. Lenz,              failing to designate waters needing protection or
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                   improvement in order to support shellfish life and growth
judgment on 4 December 1997, in which it:                            in accordance with Article 4 of Council Directive 79/923/
                                                                     EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of
                                                                     shellfish waters (OJ L 281, 10.11.1979, p. 47) and/or to
                                                                     notify such designation to the Commission in accordance
                                                                     with Article 13 of Directive 79/923/EEC; Ð by failing to
1. declares that, by retaining in national law rules
                                                                     establish programmes in order to reduce pollution in
    prohibiting nightwork by women, contrary to Article 5
                                                                     accordance with Article 5 of Directive 79/923/EEC, and
    of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976
                                                                     Ð by failing to set values for the parameters listed at
    on the implementation of the principle of equal
                                                                     points 8 and 9 of the Annex to Directive 79/923/EEC,
    treatment for men and women as regards access to
                                                                     other than for mercury and lead, in accordance with
    employment, vocational training and promotion, and
                                                                     Article 3 of Directive 79/923/EEC, the Italian Republic
    working conditions, the Italian Republic has failed to
                                                                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty Ð
    fulfil its obligations under Community law;
                                                                     the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
                                                                     President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida
                                                                     (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and P.
                                                                     Jann, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
2. dismisses the        remainder    of  the   application  as       Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 December 1997, in
    inadmissible;                                                    which it declares that:


title: Case T-21/12: Order of the General Court of 15 January 2013 — Alfacam and Others v Parliament (Action for annulment — Public service contracts — Procurement procedure — Supply of audiovisual services to the Parliament — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Articles 94 and 103 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) no 1605/2002 — Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/22

         Order of the General Court of 15 January 2013 — Alfacam and Others v Parliament
   (Case T-21/12) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Public service contracts - Procurement procedure - Supply of audiovisual services to the Parliament - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Articles 94 and 103 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) no 1605/2002 - Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)
   2013/C 71/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Alfacam (Lint, Belgium); Via Storia (Schiltigheim, France); DB Video Productions (Aartselaar, Belgium); IEC (Rennes, France) and European Broadcast Partners (Eubropa) (Aartselaar) (represented by: B. Pierart, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by: P. López-Carceller and C. Braunstein, and subsequently by: P. López-Carceller and G. Hellinckx, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 18 November 2011 to award lot No 1 in the call for tenders EP/DGCOMM/AV/11/11 relating to the provision of audiovisual services within the Parliament in Brussels (Belgium) to watch tv and of the Parliament’s decision of 18 November 2011 rejecting Eubropa’s bid for that lot.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 November 2000 in Case T-158/98: Bernard Beyt and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Temporary agents — Posting in a third country — Remuneration — Fixing of a weighting specific to Naka (Japan) — Retroactive effect — Recovery of overpayment)

text:
24.3.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 95/9
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              1.     Dismisses the application.
                                                                         2.     Orders the applicants to pay all the costs and the United
                                                                                Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own
                     of 29 November 2000                                        costs.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.97.
in Case T-213/97: Committee of the Cotton and Allied
Textile Industries of the European Union (Eurocoton) and
         Others v Council of the European Union (1)
(Dumping — Failure by the Council to adopt definitive
duties — Action for annulment — Actionable measure —
                      Action for damages)                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 8 November 2000
                         (2001/C 95/15)
                                                                         in Case T-158/98: Bernard Beyt and Others v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                         (Officials — Temporary agents — Posting in a third country
                   (Language of the case: English)                       — Remuneration — Fixing of a weighting specific to Naka
                                                                           (Japan) — Retroactive effect — Recovery of overpayment)
In Case T-213/97: Committee of the Cotton and Allied Textile                                        (2001/C 95/16)
Industries of the European Union (Eurocoton), established in
Brussels, Belgium, Ettlin Gesellschaft für Spinnerei und Webe-
rei AG, established in Ettlingen, Germany, Textil Hof Weberei                                (Language of the case: French)
GmbH & Co. KG, established in Hof, Germany, H. Hecking
Söhne GmbH & Co., established in Stadtlohn, Germany,
Spinnweberei Uhingen GmbH, established in Uhingen, Germ-                 In Case T-158/98: Bernard Bareyt, Ivone Benfatto, Denis
any, F.A. Kümpers GmbH & Co., established in Rheine,                     Bessette, Giuliano Dalle Carbonare, Enrico Di Pietro, Barry
Germany, Tenthorey SA, established in Éloyes, France, Les               John Green, Remmelt Haange, Michel Huguet, Marcus Iseli,
Tissages des Héritiers de G. Perrin — Groupe Alain Thirion               Cornelis Jorg, Neil Mitchell, Pier Luigi Mondino, Alfredo
(HPG-GAT Tissages), established in Cornimont, France, Établis-          Portone, Carlo Sborchia, Alessandro Tesini, Mike Michael
sements des Fils de Victor Perrin SARL, established in Thiéfosse,        Wykes, temporary agents of the Commission of the European
France, Filatures et Tissages de Saulxures-sur-Moselotte, estab-         Communities, all residing in Naka (Japan), represented by
lished in Saulxures-sur-Moselotte, France, Tissage Mouline               Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
Thillot, established in Thillot, France, Tessival SpA, established       in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Becker and Cahen, 3 Rue des
in Azzano S. Paolo, Italy, Filature Niggeler & Küpfer SpA,               Foyers, against the Commission of the European Communities
established in Capriolo, Italy and Standardtela SpA, established         (Agents: G. Valsesia and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart), supported by
in Milan, Italy, represented by C. Stanbrook, QC, and A. Dash-           Council of the European Union (Agents: C. Strömholm and
wood, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            T. Blanchet) — application for annulment of all the salary slips
the Chambers of A. Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire,                 of the applicants from November 1997 in so far as they apply
against Council of the European Union (Agents: M.A. Santa-               the specific weighting fixed for Naka by Council Regulation
cruz, A. Tanca and S. Marquardt, H.-J. Rabe and G.M. Berrisch),          (ECSC, EC, Euratom) No 1785/97 of 11 September 1997
supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                laying down the weightings applicable from 1 January 1997
Ireland, (Agent: J.E. Collins) — application for annulment of            to the remuneration of officials of the European Communities
the Council’s ‘decision’ not to adopt the proposal for a                 serving in third countries (OJ 1997 L 254, p. 1), and for an
regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports            order requiring the Commission to repay to the applicants the
of unbleached (grey) cotton fabrics originating in the People’s          amounts withheld from their salary with effect from June
Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and                 1996 by way of recovery of amounts overpaid and to pay
Turkey, (COM(97) 160 final, of 21 April 1997) and for                    them the difference between the salary calculated on the basis
compensation for the damage suffered as a result of that                 of the weighting for Tokyo (Japan) and that paid to them as
‘decision’ — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber,                from November 1997 on the basis of the specific weighting
Extended Composition), composed of: J. Pirrung, President,               — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
J. Azizi, A. Potocki, M. Jaeger and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;                 J. Pirrung, President, J. Azizi and A. Potocki, Judges; G. Herzig,
G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                 administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 Novem-
judgment on 29 November 2000, in which it:                               ber 2000, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 95/10                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24.3.2001
1.    dismisses the application;                                            3.    Orders the Commission to repay to the applicant the sums
                                                                                recovered from her pension, amounting to LUF 181 446;
2.    orders each of the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                            4.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
(1) OJ No C 358 of 21.11.98.                                                5.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ No C 86, 27.3.1999.
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 8 November 2000
                                                                                of 26 October 2000
in Case T-210/98: E v Commission of the European
                          Communities (1)
                                                                            in Joined Cases T-83/99, T-84/99 and T-85/99: Carlo Ripa
                                                                                di Meana and Others v European Parliament (1)
(Officials — Dependent child allowance — Double allow-
ance for child affected by mental or physical handicap —
          Suspension — Recovery of undue payment)                           (Members of the European Parliament — Provisional retire-
                                                                            ment pension scheme — Time-limit for submitting request
                                                                                — Knowledge acquired — Admissibility)
                          (2001/C 95/17)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/18)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-210/98: E, a former official of the European
Communities, residing in Luxembourg, represented initially by
                                                                            In Joined Cases T-83/99, T-84/99 and T-85/99: Carlo Ripa di
C. Revoldini and subsequently by J. Choucroun, both of the
                                                                            Meana, former Italian Member of the European Parliament,
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                            residing in Montecastello di Vibio (Italy), Leoluca Orlando,
at the Chambers of the latter, 84 Grand-Rue, against the
                                                                            former Italian Member of the European Parliament, residing in
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berar-
                                                                            Palermo (Italy), Gastone Parigi, former Italian Member of the
dis-Kayser, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and B. Wägenbaur) —
                                                                            European Parliament, residing in Pordenone (Italy), represented
applications for the annulment, first, of a Commission decision
                                                                            by V. Viscardini Donà, assisted by G. Donà, of the Padua Bar,
of 14 July 1998 suspending payment of a double dependent
                                                                            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
child allowance and retrospectively withdrawing the benefit of
                                                                            E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against European Parlia-
the latter for the period from 1 January 1997 until 14 July
                                                                            ment (Agents: A. Caiola, G. Ricci and F. Capelli) — application
1998, and, second, of a Commission decision of 22 July 1998
                                                                            for annulment of the decisions of the European Parliament of
recovering from the applicant’s retirement pension sums
                                                                            4 February 1999 rejecting the requests submitted by Mr Ripa
totalling LUF 181 446 allegedly paid unduly by way of that
                                                                            di Meana, Mr Orlando and Mr Parigi, seeking to obtain
allowance, and for an order that the Commission repay to the
                                                                            retroactive application of the provisional retirement pension
applicant the amounts withheld from her pension — the Court
                                                                            scheme referred to in Annex III to the Rules Governing the
of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung,
                                                                            Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members of the
President of the Chamber, A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
                                                                            European Parliament — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                                                                            Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos
a judgment on 8 November 2000, in which it:
                                                                            and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig, administrator, for the
                                                                            Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 October 2000, in which it:
1.    Annuls the Commission decision of 14 July 1998 in so far as
      it withdraws the grant of the double allowance for a dependent        1.    annuls the decisions of the European Parliament of 4 February
      child provided for in Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations of             1999 No 300762 and No 300763 rejecting the requests
      Officials of the European Communities for the period from                   submitted by Mr Ripa di Meana and Mr Orlando for the
      1 January 1997 until 14 July 1998;                                          provisional pension scheme referred to in Annex III to the
                                                                                Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to
2.    Annuls the Commission decision of 23 July 1998, recovering                  Members of the European Parliament to apply with retroactive
      the sum of LUF 181 446;                                                     effect;


title: Case T-567/14: Order of the General Court of 29 June 2016 — Group v EUIPO — ILIEV (GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union figurative mark GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL — Earlier, non-registered national figurative marks GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL — Relative ground for refusal — Application of national law — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Evidence establishing the content of the national right — Rule 19(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Failure to take account of evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/29

         Order of the General Court of 29 June 2016 — Group v EUIPO — ILIEV (GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL)
   (Case T-567/14) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union figurative mark GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL - Earlier, non-registered national figurative marks GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL - Relative ground for refusal - Application of national law - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Evidence establishing the content of the national right - Rule 19(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Failure to take account of evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 305/39)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Group OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: D. Dragiev and A. Andreev, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, P. Ivanov and D. Botis, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Kosta Iliev (Sofia) (represented by: S. Ganeva, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2014 (Case R 1587/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Group OOD and Mr Iliev.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 June 2014 (Case R 1587/2013-4).

               2.

               Orders EUIPO and Mr Kosta Iliev to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Group OOD.

      (1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.


title: Case F-149/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — HG v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Officials posted to a non-Member State — Lodging provided by the administration — Obligation to reside there — Disciplinary procedure — Disciplinary penalty — Article 9(1)(c) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Deferment of advancement to a higher step — Compensation for the harm — Article 22 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/41

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — HG v Commission
      (Case F-149/15) (1)

      ((Civil Service - Officials - Officials posted to a non-Member State - Lodging provided by the administration - Obligation to reside there - Disciplinary procedure - Disciplinary penalty - Article 9(1)(c) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Deferment of advancement to a higher step - Compensation for the harm - Article 22 of the Staff Regulations))
      (2016/C 364/50)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: HG (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, agents, A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision imposing on the applicant the penalty of deferment of advancement to a higher step and obliging the applicant to pay compensation in respect of harm allegedly incurred by the European Union, and an application for compensation in respect of the non-material harm and the reputational damage allegedly incurred.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders HG to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016, p. 46.


title: Case C-121/16: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cagliari — Italy) — Salumificio Murru SpA v Autotrasporti di Marongiu Remigio (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 101 TFEU — Road transport — Price of road haulage services for hire or reward which may not be lower than the minimum operating costs — Competition — Fixing of costs by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport)

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/5

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cagliari — Italy) — Salumificio Murru SpA v Autotrasporti di Marongiu Remigio
   (Case C-121/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 101 TFEU - Road transport - Price of road haulage services for hire or reward which may not be lower than the minimum operating costs - Competition - Fixing of costs by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport))
   (2016/C 326/07)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Cagliari

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Salumificio Murru SpA

      Defendant: Autotrasporti di Marongiu Remigio

      Operative part of the order

   Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the price of road haulage services for hire or reward may not be lower than minimum operating costs fixed by a national administration.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.


title: Case C-479/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf — Germany)) — Sabine Hünnebeck v Finanzamt Krefeld (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU — Gift tax — Gift of immovable property situated within national territory — National law providing for a higher tax-free allowance for residents than for non-residents — Existence of an optional regime allowing any person resident in an EU Member State to benefit from the higher tax-free allowance)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf — Germany)) — Sabine Hünnebeck v Finanzamt Krefeld
   (Case C-479/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU - Gift tax - Gift of immovable property situated within national territory - National law providing for a higher tax-free allowance for residents than for non-residents - Existence of an optional regime allowing any person resident in an EU Member State to benefit from the higher tax-free allowance))
   (2016/C 296/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sabine Hünnebeck

      Defendant: Finanzamt Krefeld

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding rules of national law that provide, in respect of gifts between non-residents, in the absence of a specific request by the beneficiary, for recourse to a method of calculation of taxation by application of a lower tax-free allowance. Those articles also preclude, in any event, rules of national law which provide, at the request of such a beneficiary, for recourse to a method of calculation of taxation by application of a higher tax-free allowance which applies to gifts in respect of which at least one party is a resident, the exercise of that option by the non-resident beneficiary involving the aggregation, for the purpose of the calculation of tax due on the gift in question, of all the gifts received by that beneficiary from the same person over the course of the 10 years preceding and the 10 years following that gift.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


title: Case C-184/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Mathilde Grasser v Freistaat Bayern (Directive 91/439/EEC — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Driving licence issued by a Member State in disregard of the residence condition — Refusal of recognition by the host Member State based solely on disregard of the residence condition)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Mathilde Grasser v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-184/10) (1)

   (Directive 91/439/EEC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Driving licence issued by a Member State in disregard of the residence condition - Refusal of recognition by the host Member State based solely on disregard of the residence condition)
   2011/C 204/18
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mathilde Grasser

      Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) — Driving licence issued by a Member State to a national of another Member State normally resident in that other Member State at the time of issue of the licence and never having been the subject of a measure withdrawing the national licence — Whether Member States may refuse to recognise a driving licence issued by another Member State on the sole basis of the infringement of the residence condition

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 1(2), 7(1)(b) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Commission Directive 2008/65/EC of 27 June 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding a host Member State from refusing to recognise in its territory a driving licence issued by another Member State, where it is established, on the basis of entries appearing in that licence, that the normal residence condition, laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of that directive, has not been observed. The fact that the host Member State has not applied any measure under Article 8(2) of that directive to the licence holder is irrelevant in that regard.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2003 in Case T-310/97: Nederlandse Antillen v Council of the European Union (Association of the overseas countries and territories — Decision 97/803/EC — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
13.12.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 304/27
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-                    (agent: L. Fraguas Gardea), Sogecable SA, established in Madrid,
mission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-                  represented by S. Martinez Lage and H. Brokelmann, lawyers,
Kayser and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application for annul-                DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital SA (Vía Digital),
ment of the Commission’s decision refusing to enter the                    established in Madrid, and Telefónica de Contenidos SAU,
applicant on the list of officials deemed most deserving of                established in Madrid, represented by M. Merola and S. Moreno
promotion to Grade B 2 for the 2001 promotion procedure                    Sánchez, lawyers, application for annulment of the Com-
and also the decision not to promote him — the Court of First              mission decision of 14 August 2002 referring the examination
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,              of the concentration integrating DTS Distribuidora de Tele-
and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a             visión Digital SA (Via Digital) and Sogecable SA to the Spanish
judgment on 18 September 2003, the operative part of which                 competition authorities in accordance with Article 9 of Council
is as follows:                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the
                                                                           control of concentrations between undertakings (Case COMP/
1.    The application is dismissed;                                        M.2845 — Sogecable/Canalsatélite Digital/Vía Digital), the
                                                                           Court of Justice (Third Chamber), composed of A. Lenaerts,
                                                                           President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, judges: Registrar: J. Palacio
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                           González, Principal Administrator, has delivered a judgment
                                                                           on 30 September 2003 in which it:
(1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.
                                                                           (1) Joins Cases T-346/02 and T-347/02 for the purposes of the
                                                                                judgment;
                                                                           (2) Dismisses the applications;
                                                                           (3) Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and jointly and
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     severally to pay the costs of the Commission, Sogecable, Vía
                                                                                Digital and Telefónica de Contenidos in connection with the
                     of 30 September 2003                                       applicants’ actions;
                                                                           (4) Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
in Joined Cases T-346/02 and T-347/02, Cableuropa SA
and others v Commission of the European Communi-
                                ties (1)                                   (1) OJ C 19 of 24.1.2003.
(Competition — Control of concentrations between under-
takings — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision to
refer a concentration to the national authorities — Meaning
                         of distinct market)
                          (2003/C 304/49)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                of 17 September 2003
                                                                           in Case T-310/97: Nederlandse Antillen v Council of the
In Joined Cases T-346/02 and T-347/02, Cableuropa SA,                                             European Union (1)
established in Madrid (Spain), Región de Murcia de Cable SA,
established in Murcia (Spain), Valencia de Cable SA, established
in Madrid, Mediterránea Sur Sistemas de Cable SA, established              (Association of the overseas countries and territories —
in Alicante (Spain), Mediterránea Norte Sistemas de Cable SA,              Decision 97/803/EC — Action for annulment — Inadmissi-
established in Castellón (Spain), represented by L. Castresana                                            bility)
Sánchez and G. Samaniego Bordiu, lawyers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg, Aunacable SA, established in                                              (2003/C 304/50)
Madrid, represented by A. Creus Carreras and N. Lacalle
Mangas, lawyers, Sociedad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones
de Castilla y León (Retecal) SA, established in Boecilli (Spain),                             (Language of the case: English)
Euskaltel SA, established in Zamudio-Bizkaia (Spain), Telecable
de Avilés SA, established in Avilés (Spain), Telecable de Ovieda
SA, established in Oviedo (Spain), Telecable de Gijón SA,
established in Gijón (Spain), R. Cable y Telecomunicaciones                In Case T-310/97, Nederlandse Antillen, represented by
Galicia SA, established in La Coruña (Spain), Tenaria SA,                  P.V.F. Bos and M. Slotboom, lawyers, with an address for
established in Cordovilla (Spain), represented by J. Jiménez               service in Luxembourg, v Council of the European Union
Laiglesia, lawyer, v Commission of the European Communites                 (Agents: J. Huber and G. Houttuin), supported by Commission
(agent: F. Castillo de la Torre), supported by Kingdom of Spain            of the European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and
 ---pagebreak--- C 304/28               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                        13.12.2003
X. Lewis), Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) and                       1.   The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Chavance),
APPLICATION for annulment of Council Decision 97/803/EC
                                                                            2.   The applicant is to bear its own costs and to pay those of the
of 24 November 1997 amending at mid-term, Decision 91/
                                                                                Council;
482/EEC on the association of the overseas countries and
territories with the European Economic Community (OJ 1997
L 329, p. 50), the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                 3.   The interveners are to bear their own costs.
composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 17 September
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                            (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
2.    The applicant is to bear its own costs and to pay those of the
      Council, including those relating to the proceedings for interim
      relief;
3.    The interveners are to bear their own costs.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 55 of 20.02.1998.
                                                                                of 17 September 2003
                                                                            in Case T-54/98: Aruba v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
                                                                            (Association of the overseas countries and territories —
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Imports into the Community of sugar originating in Aruba
                                                                            — Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 — Action for annulment
                      of 17 September 2003                                                         — Inadmissibility)
in Case T-36/98: Aruba v Council of the European                                                     (2003/C 304/52)
                              Union (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Association of the overseas countries and territories —
Decision 97/803/EC — Action for annulment — Inadmissi-
                                bility)
                          (2003/C 304/51)                                   In Case T-54/98: Aruba, represented by P. Bos and M. Slot-
                                                                            boom, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                   (Language of the case: English)                          T. van Rijn), supported by the Council of the European Union
                                                                            (Agents: J. Huber and G. Houttuin) and by the United Kingdom
                                                                            of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill) —
                                                                            application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
                                                                            No 2553/97 of 17 December 1997 on rules for issuing import
In Case T-36/98: Aruba, represented by P.V.F. Bos and M.
                                                                            licences for certain products covered by CN codes 1701, 1702,
Slotboom, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                            1703 and 1704 and qualifying as ACP/OCT originating
against the Council of the European Union (Agents: J. Huber
                                                                            products (OJ 1997 L 349, p. 26) — the Court of First Instance
and G. Houttuin), supported by the Commission of the
                                                                            (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi
European Communities (Agents T. van Rijn and X. Lewis) and
                                                                            and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order
by the Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) — application
                                                                            on 17 September 2003, the operative part of which is as
for annulment of Council Decision 97/803/EC of 24 Novem-
                                                                            follows:
ber 1997 amending at mid-term, Decision 91/482/EEC on the
association of the overseas countries and territories with the
European Economic Community (OJ 1997 L 329, p. 50) —
                                                                            1.   The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of
K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has made an order on 17 September 2003, the                      2.   The applicant is to bear its own costs and to pay those of the
operative part of which is as follows:                                           Commission;


title: Case C-457/01 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2001 by Henkel KGaA against the judgment delivered on 19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-336/99, between Henkel KGaA and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 84/40                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        6.4.2002
such legislation has been found to be non-compliant. It is            Pleas in law and main arguments
untenable to think that service order No 57/2000 of 4 August
2000 issued by the authority governing harbourmasters is
capable of amending Decree No 347/94 containing the                   Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94
contested provisions.                                                 on the Community trade mark (2). Contrary to the view of the
                                                                      Court of First Instance, the mark applied for lacks distinctive
                                                                      character. At the time of the application, neither the tablet
                                                                      shape nor the colour combination, and especially the combi-
In the Commission’s view, the Italian authorities are well aware
                                                                      nation of the two, were typical for a washing powder and they
of the above considerations, as is clear from the undertaking
                                                                      were certainly not technically necessary.
given several times — but so far not fulfilled — to make the
necessary amendments to Presidential Decree No 347/94 in
order to bring Italian legislation into line with Community
law.                                                                  Contrary to the view taken by the Court of First Instance, there
                                                                      is no reason why consumers should in principle be regarded
                                                                      as less attentive when purchasing goods for everyday use;
                                                                      rather, the opposite is true.
                                                                      In the alternative: even if the time of registration were decisive,
                                                                      the possibility cannot be ruled out that the contested trade
                                                                      mark application could serve to designate the origin of the
                                                                      goods, since it is prohibited, when considering the list of
                                                                      goods, to rule out distinctiveness on the grounds that there
Appeal brought on 28 November 2001 by Henkel KGaA                     may be similarities between the goods. That approach conflates
against the judgment delivered on 19 September 2001 by                to an unacceptable degree the issue of registrability with that
the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                  of scope of protection, or likelihood of confusion. Even where
the European Communities in Case T-335/99, between                    a mark is confusingly similar, it is for the proprietor of the
Henkel KGaA and the Office for Harmonization in the                   mark having priority to obtain refusal of the earlier mark
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                    under Article 8 of Regulation 40/94.
                        (Case C-456/01 P)
                                                                      (1) Not yet published in the court reports.
                                                                      (2) OJ L 11, p. 1.
                          (2002/C 84/69)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-335/99, between Henkel
                                                                      Appeal brought on 28 November 2001 by Henkel KGaA
KGaA and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
                                                                      against the judgment delivered on 19 September 2001 by
(Trade Marks and Designs) (1), was brought before the Court of
                                                                      the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
Justice of the European Communities on 28 November
                                                                      the European Communities in Case T-336/99, between
2001 by Henkel KGaA, represented by Rechtsanwälte Holger
                                                                      Henkel KGaA and the Office for Harmonization in the
Friedrich Wissel and Dr. Christian Osterrieth, Düsseldorf, with
                                                                               Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Case C-457/01 P)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2002/C 84/70)
—     partially annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance
      of the European Communities of 19 September 2001 in
      Case T-335/999, served on 1 October 2001;
                                                                      An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
      annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the          2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of              the European Communities in Case T-335/99, between Henkel
      21 September 1999 in Case R 71/1999-3 relating to               KGaA and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
      Community trade mark application number 703 231;                (Trade Marks and Designs) (1), was brought before the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities on 28 November
                                                                      2001 by Henkel KGaA, represented by Rechtsanwälte Holger
—     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market       Friedrich Wissel and Dr. Christian Osterrieth, Düsseldorf, with
      to pay the costs of the proceedings.                            an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 84/41
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Pleas in law and main arguments
—     partially annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance
      of the European Communities of 19 September 2001 in              Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty), which
      Case T-336/999, served on 1 October 2001;                        provides that a directive is binding, as to the result to be
                                                                       achieved, on the Member State to which it is addressed, entails
      annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the           an obligation on the Member States to adhere to the time-
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of               limits for implementation laid down in directives. That time-
      21 September 1999 in Case R 71/1999-3 relating to                limit expired on 1 July 2000 before the Italian Republic had
      Community trade mark application number 703 231;                 taken the necessary measures to comply with the directive
                                                                       which is the subject of the Commission’s claims.
—     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
      to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Action brought on 29 November 2001 by the Com-
The same as in Case C-456/01P.                                            mission of the European Communities against Ireland
(1) Not yet published in the court reports.                                                     (Case C-459/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/72)
                                                                       An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities on 29 November 2001
Action brought on 29 November 2001 by the Com-                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
mission of the European Communities against the Italian                by Christopher Docksey and Karen Banks, acting as agents,
                              Republic                                 with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                          (Case C-458/01)
                                                                       The Applicant requests that the Court should:
                           (2002/C 84/71)
                                                                       1.    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                             or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                             European Parliament and Council Directive 95/46/EC of
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                24 October 1995 concerning the protection of individ-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 Novem-                    uals with regard to the processing of personal data and
ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      on the free movement of such data (1) and European
represented by Chiara Cattabriga and Arnaud Bordes, acting as                Parliament and Council Directive 97/66/EC of 15 Decem-
Agents.                                                                      ber 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and
                                                                             the protection of privacy in the telecommunications
                                                                             sector (2), or, in any event, by failing to inform the
                                                                             Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  its obligations under the said Directives, and
—     declare that by failing to adopt within the prescribed           2.    order Ireland to pay the costs of this action.
      period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
      necessary to comply with Council Directive 1999/90/EC
      of 15 November 1999 amending Directive 90/539/EEC
      on animal health conditions governing intra-Community
      trade in and imports from third countries of poultry and         Pleas in law and main arguments
      hatching eggs the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under the EC Treaty;
                                                                       Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                     the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by


title: Case T-371/11: Action brought on 11 July 2011 — Monier Roofing Components v OHIM (CLIMA COMFORT)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/54

         Action brought on 11 July 2011 — Monier Roofing Components v OHIM (CLIMA COMFORT)
   (Case T-371/11)
   2011/C 269/119
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Monier Roofing Components GmbH (Oberursel, Germany) (represented by F. Ekey, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 April 2011 in Case R 2026/2010-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘CLIMA COMFORT’ for goods in class 17 — application No 9175324.

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 in so far as (i) the Board of Appeal proceeded on the basis of erroneous physical findings, without hearing the applicant in that respect; (ii) the Board of Appeal was under a duty to establish the facts of its own motion; and (iii) the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the quality and intended purpose of the goods in question and in its findings as to the significance of the sign ‘CLIMA COMFORT’ in relation to the goods in question.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  1 December 2005  in Case C-309/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof Fleisch-Winter GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Export refunds — Condition for grant — Beef and veal — Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Bovine spongiform encephalopathy — Export ban — Sound and fair marketable quality — Export declaration — National application for a payment — Sanction)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 1 December 2005
   in Case C-309/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof Fleisch-Winter GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (1)

   (Export refunds - Condition for grant - Beef and veal - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Bovine spongiform encephalopathy - Export ban - Sound and fair marketable quality - Export declaration - National application for a payment - Sanction)
   (2006/C 48/15)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-309/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by Decision of 20 April 2004, received at the Court on 21 July 2004, in the proceedings pending before that court between Fleisch-Winter GmbH & Co. KG and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas — the Court: (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, E. Juhász and E. Levits, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General, K. Sztranc, Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 December 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes beef that is subject to a ban, laid down by Community law, on export from one Member State to other Member States and non-member countries from being regarded as being of ‘sound and fair marketable quality’ for the purpose of the payment of refunds, and that the exporter must show that the exported product does not originate in a Member State from which exports are banned, where the national administration has evidence that the product is subject to an export ban.

               2.

               The assurance in a national request for payment that a product is of ‘sound and fair marketable quality’, within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 13 of Regulation No 3665/87, as amended by Regulation No 2945/94, is not part of the information provided pursuant to the combined provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 11(1) and Article 3 of that regulation. However, it may be regarded by the national court as evidence for the purpose of determining the exporter's position.

      (1)  OJ C 239 of 25.04.2004.


title: Case F-60/09: Action brought on 24 June 2009 — Birkhoff v Commission

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/50

         Action brought on 24 June 2009 — Birkhoff v Commission
   (Case F-60/09)
   2009/C 205/92
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Gerhard Birkhoff (Weitnau, Germany) (represented by: C. Inzillo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request seeking the extension of the application of Article 2(5) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations for the benefit of his daughter with effect from 1 January 2009 and an order that the Commission pay the sums due under that provision with effect from 1 January 2009.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare to be unlawful and, accordingly, annul the decision of the appointing authority of 2 April 2009 in so far as it is unlawful and manifestly unfounded in fact and in law, and any subsequent act and/or decision taken prior to that decision, which is connected or consequential to it, and in particular the decision of 14 November 2008 issued by PMO4;

               —

               order the Commission to pay in full the sums not paid to the applicant since 1 January 2009, such sums to take account of indexation, together with interest;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-122/01: Action brought on 4 June 2001 by Best Buy Concepts Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
11.8.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 227/31
The applicant considers that the Commission’s inaction is                                              — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
contrary to the Treaty and to Regulation No 17, since it is                                                of Regulation No 40/94;
allowing an infringement of Article 81(1) of the Treaty to                                             — Failure to take account of the
continue, although it has all the evidence available to adopt                                              services actually being offered;
the necessary measures.
                                                                                — Failure to take account of the
                                                                                existing registrations of the
                                                                                sign in Germany and France.
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                             Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Action brought on 4 June 2001 by Best Buy Concepts Inc.
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                         (Case T-122/01)
                                                                         Action brought on 1 June 2001 by Pietro del Vaglio
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (2001/C 227/59)
                                                                                (Case T-124/01)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/60)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                      (Language of the case: French)
4 June 2001 by Best Buy Concepts Inc., Minnesota (U.S.A.),
represented by Sabine Rojahn, Rechtsanwältin, with an address            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
for service in Luxembourg.                                               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 1 June 2001 by Pietro del Vaglio
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              domiciled in London, represented by Georges Vandersanden,
                                                                         Laure Levi and Dugois Dominique, Lawyers.
—     set aside the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
      21 March 2001 in Case R 44/2000-3;
                                                                         —     Annul the Commission’s Decision of 5 April 2000
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.                 refusing to apply the United Kingdom weighting to the
                                                                               applicant’s pension as from 8 May 1999 and, so far as
                                                                               necessary, annul the decision of the Commission of
                                                                               23 February 2001 dismissing the applicant’s claim of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                18 July 2000;
                                                                         —     Order the defendant to apply the United Kingdom
Trade mark for which           The pictorial mark ‘BEST BUY’ —                 weighting with retroactive effect from 8 May 1999;
Community registration         Application No 001166164
                                                                         —     Order the defendant to pay damage provisionally assessed
sought:
                                                                               ex aequo et bono at 10 000 Euros and to pay interest at
                                                                               8 % per annum on the remainder of the pension owed as
Goods or services:             Services in Classes 35, 37 and 42               from 8 May 1999;
                               (including management con-
                               sultancy, installation of car stereo      —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                               systems and products for the pri-
                               vate office, and specialist advice
                               on the fitting-out of retail busi-
                               nesses)                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision disputed before       Refusal of registration by the            The applicant claims infringement of Article 82 of the Staff
the Board of Appeal:           examiner                                  Regulations. The applicant claims that the Commission did
                                                                         not properly evaluate the documentation he provided to prove
Pleas in law:                  — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)         his change of country of residence. The Commission should,
                                   of Regulation No 40/94 (1);           inter alia, have taken into consideration the particular situation