title: Case C-44/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main v Duval GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Position 9025 — Concept of ‘thermometer’ — Indicators of exposure to a predetermined target temperature to be used on one occasion only)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/10

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main v Duval GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-44/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Position 9025 - Concept of ‘thermometer’ - Indicators of exposure to a predetermined target temperature to be used on one occasion only))
   (2016/C 038/13)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main

      Defendant: Duval GmbH & Co. KG

      Operative part of the judgment

   Heading 9025 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 must be interpreted as covering ambient temperature indicators made of paper, in some circumstances covered with plastic film, such as the goods at issue in the main proceedings, which, by the effect of a change in colour, indicate, irreversibly and without the possibility of subsequent re-use, whether one or more threshold temperatures have been reached.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.


title: Case C-213/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) by order of that court of 29 April 2004 in the case of Ewald Burtscher against Josef Stauderer

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) by order of that court of 29 April 2004 in the case of Ewald Burtscher against Josef Stauderer
   (Case C-213/04)
   (2004/C 190/10)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Austria, of 29 April 2004 received at the Court Registry on 19 May 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ewald Burtscher against Josef Stauderer on the following question:
   Should Article 56 EC be interpreted as precluding national legislation (Vorarlberger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Vorarlberg Land Transfer Law)) by which, in the case of a land purchase transaction that does not require the authorisation of the land transfer authority, failure by the acquirer to declare by the due date that the land is built on, that the acquisition is not for holiday purposes, and that he is, or should be treated as, an Austrian national, results in the retrospective invalidity of the transaction?


4.5.2002              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 109/39
      Removal from the register of Case C-105/98 P (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-295/99 (1)
                       (2002/C 109/66)                                                   (2002/C 109/69)
By order of 27 November 2001 the President of the Court of        By order of 12 October 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-105/98 P: Günther Bühring v           from the register of Case C-295/99: Kingdom of Belgium v
Council of the European Union and Commission of the               Commission of the European Communities.
European Communities
                                                                  (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-461/99 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-24/99 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/70)
                       (2002/C 109/67)
                                                                  By order of 1 February 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 18 February 2002 the President of the Court of        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal           from the register of Case C-461/99: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-24/99: Commission of the              European Communities v Ireland.
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-77/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-140/99 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/71)
                       (2002/C 109/68)
                                                                  By order of 6 December 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
By order of 6 December 2001 the President of the Court of         from the register of Case C-77/00 (Referral for a preliminary
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal           ruling by the Arbeitsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany)): Urlaubs
from the register of Case C-140/99: Commission of the             — und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft v Viscondense
European Communities v French Republic.                           Construçoes, Lda.
(1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.                                        (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.


title: Case T-633/16: Action brought on 6 September 2016 — Bilde v Parliament

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/27

         Action brought on 6 September 2016 — Bilde v Parliament
   (Case T-633/16)
   (2016/C 383/36)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Dominique Bilde (Lagarde, France) (represented by: G. Sauveur, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 23 June 2016, notified on 6 July 2016, determining ‘that a sum of EUR 40 320 was wrongfully paid to Ms Dominique BILDE’ and ordering the authorising officer responsible and the institution’s accounting officer to recover that amount;

               —

               also annul the notification and measures implementing that decision contained in the letters of the Director-General for Finance of 30 June and July 2016, ref. D 201921 and D 31255; and

               —

               annul the entirety of the debit note No. 2016-889 signed by that Director-General for Finance dated 29 June 2016;

               —

               award the applicant the sum of EUR 20 000 as compensation for the non-material damage resulting simultaneously from the unfounded accusations made before any conclusion of the investigation, from the harm to her reputation, and the very significant disruption to her personal and political life caused by the contested decision;

               —

               in addition award her the sum of EUR 15 000 in respect of expenses incurred for fees for the provision of legal advice, the preparation of the present action, photocopying costs and lodging this action and the annexed documents, and order the European Parliament to pay that amount;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the entirety of the costs;

               —

               alternatively, in the event that the Court should not be entirely persuaded of the relevance and truthfulness of the applicant’s pleas in law and fact, in the interests of the sound administration of justice taking account of the undeniable relationship between the alleged facts on which the contested decision is based and those which are the subject of the criminal investigation opened by the President of the European Parliament:

                           —

                           stay the proceedings pending a final decision, which is res judicata, delivered by the French ordinary court hearing the proceedings initiated by the President of the European Parliament;

                           —

                           consequently order a stay of execution of the contested decision until the end of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on eleven pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-624/16, Gollnisch v Parliament.


title: Case T-389/03: Action brought on 24 November 2003 by Dainichiseika Colour & Chemicals Mfg. Co. Ltd. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
24.1.2004              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 21/45
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                           24 November 2003 by Dainichiseika Colour & Chemicals Mfg.
—     Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of                  Co. Ltd., Tokyo (Japan), represented by J. Hofmann, lawyer.
      the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                  Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG was also a party
      (Trademarks and Designs) No $ 0707/2002-4;                           to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
—     Annul the decision of the Examination Division dated the
      21st June 2002
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Remit Community trade mark application No 1 544 766
      to the Office so as to allow the said application to proceed         —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
      to advertisement                                                           18 September 2003 (Case R 191/2002-2);
—     order the Office to pay the applicant’s costs incurred by
      the applicant in connection with this appeal and the                 —     reject the opposition in its entirety;
      appeal before the Board of Appeal and the prosecution
      before the Examination Division.                                     —     hold that the sign sought in Community trade mark
                                                                                application No 1 005 826 may be registered as a
                                                                                Community trade mark in respect of all the goods in
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  Classes 1, 2 and 17 claimed in that application of
                                                                                25 November 1998;
Applicant for Com-              Proteome, Inc.
munity trade mark:                                                         —     order the opponent to pay all the costs incurred by the
                                                                                applicant in the opposition and appeal proceedings;
Community trade mark            Word mark ‘BIOKNOWLEDGE’
sought:                         for certain goods and services
                                in Classes 9 (databases etc.), 16          —     order the opponent to pay the costs of the present
                                (printed material etc concerning                 proceedings.
                                repositories of information relat-
                                ing to organisms) and 42 (infor-
                                mation and computer services
                                etc.) (application No 1544766).            Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision of the Examin-         Registration refused.
ation Division:                                                            Applicant for Com-            The applicant.
Decision of the Board of        Appeal rejected.                           munity trade mark:
Appeal:
                                                                           Community trade mark          Figurative mark for goods in
Pleas in law:                   Misapplication of Article 7(1) (b)         sought:                       Classes 1 (chemicals etc.), 2 (dye-
                                and (c) of Regulation 40/94 (1).                                         stuffs etc.) and 17 (plastics etc.) —
                                                                                Application No 1 005 826.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).                                    Proprietor of mark or         Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH
                                                                           sign cited in the oppo-       & Co. KG.
                                                                           sition proceedings:
                                                                           Mark or sign cited in         Community and national trade
                                                                           opposition:                   mark ‘Pelikan’.
Action brought on 24 November 2003 by Dainichiseika
Colour & Chemicals Mfg. Co. Ltd. against the Office for                    Decision of the Oppo-         Refusal of the application.
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                      sition Division:
                              Designs)
                                                                           Decision of the Board of      Dismissal      of  the    applicant’s
                         (Case T-389/03)                                   Appeal:                       appeal.
                          (2004/C 21/90)                                   Pleas in law:                 Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of
                                                                                Regulation No 40/94 (1).
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure language in which the application was
                        submitted: German)
                                                                           (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                               Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 1998 in Case C-174/97 P: Fédération Française des Sociétés d'Assurances (FFSA) and Others v. Commission of the European Communities, supported by the French Republic and La Poste (State aid - Appeal - Fiscal advantages in favour of La Poste - Insurance products)

text:
C 209/12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.7.98
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                 in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10
                     of 4 December 1997                              Rue Mathias Hardt, against the Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities (Agents: JoseÂ Luis Iglesias
in Case C-60/97 P: X v. Commission of the European                   Buhigues and Barry Doherty, assisted by Alberto Dal
                        Communities (1)                              Ferro, Avvocato) Ð application under Article 153 of the
                                                                     Euratom Treaty for compensation for damage caused by
             (Officials Ð Promotion Ð Appeal)
                                                                     failure to pay for services provided under a contract
                         (98/C 209/23)                               concluded with the Commission Ð the Court, composed
                                                                     of G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,
                                                                     H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen (Presidents of
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
                                                                     P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward
                                                                     (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, L. Sevón
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; Advocate General, A. M. La
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     Pergola; Registrar, R. Grass, made an order on 9 December
                                                                     1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
In Case C-60/97 P: X, an official of the Commission of
the European Communities, residing at Luxembourg,                    1. The case is referred to the Court of First Instance.
represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the Luxembourg Bar,
180 Route de Longwy, Luxembourg Ð appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European              2. The Court of First Instance shall make an order as to
Communities, Third Chamber, of 12 December 1996 in                        costs relating to the proceedings before both courts.
Case T-130/95 X v. Commission [1996] ECR-SC II-1609,
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to          (1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
the proceedings being Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Christine Berardis-Kayser, assisted
by Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð the Court (First Chamber),
composed of M. Wathelet (President of Chamber), P. Jann
(Rapporteur), and L. Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an
order on 4 December 1997, the operative part of which is                                ORDER OF THE COURT
as follows:                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 25 March 1998
1. The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                     in Case C-174/97 P: FeÂdeÂration FrancËaise des SocieÂteÂs
                                                                     d'Assurances (FFSA) and Others v. Commission of the
2. The appellant is ordered to pay the costs.                        European Communities, supported by the French Republic
                                                                                and La Poste (1)
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.                                            (State aid Ð Appeal Ð Fiscal advantages in favour of La
                                                                                Poste Ð Insurance products)
                                                                                (98/C 209/25)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  ORDER OF THE COURT
                     of 9 December 1997                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
in Case C-257/97: E-Quattro Snc v. Commission of the                           published in the European Court Reports)
                  European Communities (1)
(Lack of jurisdiction of the Court Ð Referral to the Court           In Case C-174/97 P: FeÂdeÂration FrancËaise des SocieÂteÂs
                       of First Instance)                            d'Assurances (FFSA), an association governed by French
                                                                     law, established in Paris, Union des SocieÂteÂs EÂtrangeÁres
                         (98/C 209/24)                               d'Assurances (USEA), an association governed by French
                                                                     law, established in Paris, Groupe des Assurances Mutuelles
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      Agricoles (Groupama), an association governed by French
                                                                     law, established in Noisy-le-Grand (France), FeÂdeÂration
                                                                     Nationale des Syndicats d'Agents GeÂneÂraux d'Assurances
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       (FNSAGA), an association governed by French law,
         published in the European Court Reports)                    established in Paris, FeÂdeÂration FrancËaise des Courtiers
                                                                     d'Assurances et de ReÂassurances (FCA), an association
                                                                     governed by French law, established in Paris, Bureau
In Case C-257/97: E-Quattro Snc, established in Laveno-              International des Producteurs d'Assurances et de
Mombello (Varese, Italy), represented by Giuseppe                    ReÂassurances (BIPAR), an association governed by French
Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service          law, established in Paris, represented by Xavier de Roux
 ---pagebreak--- 4.7.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 209/13
and Dominique Voillemot, of the Paris Bar, with an                   H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch and K. M.
Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe,                                       Ioannou, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                     Registrar, has made an order on 30 April 1998, the
Ð appeal against the judgment of the Court of First                  operative part of which is as follows:
     Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of
     27 February 1997 in Case T-106/95 FFSA and Others
     v. Commission [1997] ECR II-229, seeking to have                The references for a preliminary ruling made by the
     that judgment set aside, the other party to the                 Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Disticcata di
     proceedings being the Commission of the European                Tivoli, by orders of 5 February and 19 February 1997, are
     Communities (Agent: GeÂrard Rozet), supported by the            inadmissible.
     French Republic (Agents: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and
     Jean-Marc Belorgey) and La Poste, a corporation                 (1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.
     governed by French public law, established in
     Boulogne-Billancourt (France), represented by HerveÂ
     Lehman, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service
     in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
     Grand Rue,
Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesvergabe-
     H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, P. J. G.                amt by order of 3 March 1998 in the case of Alcatel
     Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and J. L. Murray, Judges;                  Austria AG, Stuag Bau-AG, Österreichisches Forschungs-
     A. Saggio, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has           zentrum Seibersdorf GmbH, Siemens Aktiengesellschaft
     made an order on 25 March 1998, the operative part              Österreich Ð Bietergemeinschaft Ecoroute' and Sag-
     of which is as follows:                                         Schrack Anlagentechnik AG v. Bundesministerium für
                                                                                Wissenschaft und Verkehr
     1. The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                                (Case C-81/98)
     2. The appellants are ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                                (98/C 209/27)
(1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt
                                                                     (Federal Procurement Office), Austria, of 3 March 1998,
                                                                     received at the Court Registry on 25 March 1998, for a
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                 preliminary ruling in the case of Alcatel Austria AG, Stuag
                                                                     Bau-AG, Österreichisches Forschungszentrum Seibersdorf
                       (Sixth Chamber)                               GmbH, Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Österreich Ð Bieter-
                       of 30 April 1998                              gemeinschaft Ecoroute' and Sag-Schrack Anlagentechnik
                                                                     AG v. Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Verkehr
in Joined Cases C-128/97 and C-137/97 (reference for a
                                                                     (Federal Ministry for Science and Transport) on the
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                     following questions:
Roma, Sezione Disticcata di Tivoli): criminal proceedings
against Italia Testa (C-128/97) and Mario Modesti
(C-137/97) Ð intervener: SocietaÁ Italiana degli Autori ed
                                                                     A. When implementing Directive 89/665/EEC (1), are
                       Editori (SIAE) (1)
                                                                         Member States required by Article 2(6) thereof to
    (Reference for a preliminary ruling Ð Inadmissibility)               ensure that the contracting authority's decision prior
                                                                         to the conclusion of the contract as to the bidder in a
                         (98/C 209/26)
                                                                         tender procedure with which, in the light of the
                                                                         procedure's results, it will conclude the contract (i. e.
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         the award decision) is in any event open to a
                                                                         procedure whereby an applicant may have that
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           decision annulled if the relevant conditions are met,
          published in the European Court Reports)                       notwithstanding the possibility once the contract has
                                                                         been concluded of restricting the legal effects of the
In Joined Cases C-128/97 and C-137/97: reference to the                  review procedure to an award of damages?
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Disticcata di
Tivoli, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings         B. If Question A is answered in the affirmative:
pending before that court against Italia Testa (C-128/97)
and Mario Modesti (C-137/97) Ð intervener: SocietaÁ
Italiana degli Autori ed Editori (SIAE) Ð on the                         Is the obligation described under A. sufficiently clear
interpretation of Articles 30, 36, 85 and 86 of the EC                   and precise to confer on individuals the right to a
Treaty in the light of national rules relating to copyright              review corresponding to the requirements of Article 1
management Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of                      of Directive 89/665/EEC, in which the national court


C 102/32              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                  8.4.2000
       Removal from the register of Case T-161/99 (1)                            Removal from the register of Case T-181/99 (1)
                        (2000/C 102/65)
                                                                                (2000/C 102/66)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 1 February 2000, the President of the Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                  By order of 1 February 2000, the President of the Fifth
the register of Case T-161/99: Navigazione libera del Golfo               Chamber, of the Court of First Instance of the European
S.p.A. (N.L.G.) v Commission of the European Communities.                 Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                          Case T-181/99: Centro di Ricerca e Documentazione Febbraio
                                                                          74 v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.


title: Case C-104/16 P: Appeal brought on 19 February 2016 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 December 2015 in Case T-512/12 Polisario Front v Council

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/17

         Appeal brought on 19 February 2016 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 December 2015 in Case T-512/12 Polisario Front v Council
   (Case C-104/16 P)
   (2016/C 111/20)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Popular Front for the liberation of Saguia-el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (Polisario Front), European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-512/12;

               —

               give final judgment in the matters which are the subject of the present appeal by dismissing the action for annulment brought by the Polisario Front (the ‘applicant’); and

               —

               order the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Council at first instance and in the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the Council raises several pleas alleging errors of law.
   First, the Council takes the view that the General Court has erred in law by holding that the applicant had the capacity to bring proceedings before the Courts of the European Union.
   Second, it submits that the General Court erred in law by holding that the applicant was direct and individually concerned by the decision annulled.
   Third, it criticises the General Court for having erred in law by basing the annulment on a plea which had not been raised by the applicant and with regard to which the Council was unable to express its views.
   Fourth, the Council complains that the General Court erred in law by holding that the Council was required to examine the possible impact of the production activities concerning the products covered by the agreement concluded by the decision annulled on the human rights of the population of Western Sahara before adopting the decision annulled.
   Fifth, the General Court erred in law by holding that the Council was required to examine whether there was evidence, under the agreement concluded by that decision, of the exploitation of the natural resources of the territory of Western Sahara under Moroccan control which may be carried out to the detriment of its inhabitants and may infringe their fundamental rights, before adopting the decision annulled.
   Finally, the Council claims that the General Court erred in law by partially annulling the contested decision which had the effect of altering its substance.


title: Case F-103/06: Action brought on 4 September 2006 — Blank and Others v Commission

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/35

         Action brought on 4 September 2006 — Blank and Others v Commission
   (Case F-103/06)
   (2006/C 261/72)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Klaus Blank (St. Stevens-Woluwe, Belgium) and Others (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers )

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the refusal of the Appointing Authority (AIPN) to enter the applicants on the list of officials promoted to Grade A*10 in the 2005 promotion procedure, which decisions are to be implied from Administrative Notice No 85-2005 of 23 November 2005;

               —

               Directions to the AIPN as to the effects of the annulment of the contested decisions and, in particular, reclassification of the applicants in Grade A*10, with retrospective effect from 1 March 2005,

               —

               In the alternative, as regards one of the applicants, first, a direction to the defendant to recognise him as being eligible, on his next promotion, for promotion to Grade A*10 and, second, to order the defendant to compensate the same applicant for the loss he suffered as a result of not being promoted to Grade A*10 from 1 March 2005;

               —

               An order that the defendant pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of their action, the applicants rely on pleas in law very similar to those pleaded in Case F-45/06. (1)

      (1)  OJEU C 143, 17.06.2006, p. 39.


title: Case T-207/13: Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014  — 1872 Holdings v OHIM — Havana Club International (THE SPIRIT OF CUBA) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark THE SPIRIT OF CUBA — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — 1872 Holdings v OHIM — Havana Club International (THE SPIRIT OF CUBA)
   (Case T-207/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark THE SPIRIT OF CUBA - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 253/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: 1872 Holdings vof (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Antoine-Lalance, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Havana Club International SA (Havana, Cuba) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2013 (Case R 684/2012-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Havana Club International SA and 1872 Holdings vof.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders 1872 Holdings vof to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case T-360/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 March 2009 — Spain v Commission (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested measure — No need to give a decision)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/42

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 March 2009 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-360/08) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Withdrawal of the contested measure - No need to give a decision)
   2009/C 141/89
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Steiblyté and S. Pardo Quintillián, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3247 of 25 June 2008, reducing the financial assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund for project group No. 2001.ES.16.C.P.E.036 (‘Cleaning of the Hydrographic Basic of North-Galicia-2001’) by Decision C(2001) 4084 of 20 December 2001.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to give a decision in the present action.

               2.

               The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Kingdom of Spain.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case T-297/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014  — Junited Autoglas Deutschland v OHIM — Belron Hungary (United Autoglas) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark United Autoglas — Earlier national figurative mark AUTOGLASS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Junited Autoglas Deutschland v OHIM — Belron Hungary (United Autoglas)
   (Case T-297/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark United Autoglas - Earlier national figurative mark AUTOGLASS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 421/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Rajh and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Belron Hungary Kft — Zug Branch (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Christy, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2013 (Case R 206/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Belron Hungary Kft — Zug Branch and Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.


title: Case T-304/15: Action brought on 1 June 2015 — Abdulkarim v Council

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/46

         Action brought on 1 June 2015 — Abdulkarim v Council
   (Case T-304/15)
   (2015/C 245/56)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mouhamad Wael Abdulkarim (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay all the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those invoked in the context of Case T-303/15 Barqawi v Council.


title: Case C-311/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Smart Technologies ULC v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeals — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(b) — Word mark WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Distinctive character — Refusal to register)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Smart Technologies ULC v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-311/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b) - Word mark WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Distinctive character - Refusal to register)
   2012/C 287/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Smart Technologies ULC (represented by: M. Edenborough QC, and T. Elias, barrister)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 April 2011Smart Technologies v OHMI (Case T-523/09) by which that court dismissed an application for annulment of the decision R 554/2009-2 of the second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 September 2009, rejecting the appeal against the examiner’s decision refusing to register the word mark ‘WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH’ in respect of goods in Class 9.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Smart Technologies ULC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case T-377/13: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2015 — ultra air v OHIM — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultra.air ultrafilter) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark ultra.air ultrafilter — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2015 — ultra air v OHIM — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultra.air ultrafilter)
   (Case T-377/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark ultra.air ultrafilter - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 138/60)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ultra air GmbH (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH (Haan, Germany) (represented by: N. Siebertz, M. Teworte-Vey and A. Renvert, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 May 2013 (Case R 1100/2011-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH and ultra air GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 May 2013 (Case R 1100/2011-4) in so far as it concerns time control systems;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders ultra air GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by OHIM and by Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case T-530/14: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Verein StHD v OHIM (Representation of a black ribbon) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark representing a black ribbon — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Verein StHD v OHIM (Representation of a black ribbon)
   (Case T-530/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark representing a black ribbon - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 346/33)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Verein Sterbehilfe Deutschland (Verein StHD) (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Brauns, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 May 2014 (Case R 1940/2013-4) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a black ribbon as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Verein Sterbehilfe Deutschland (Verein StHD) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case F-76/11: Action brought on 1 August 2011 — ZZ v European Commission

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/29

         Action brought on 1 August 2011 — ZZ v European Commission
   (Case F-76/11)
   2011/C 319/63
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: R. Guarino, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request to be granted the expatriation allowance.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 29 April 2011;

               —

               Declare, accordingly, that the applicant is entitled to the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay that allowance with effect from 16 August 2010, the date of the applicant’s entry into service, together with compensatory interest, in respect of each monthly salary, until actual payment.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-138/99: Action brought on 8 June 1999 by Luc Verheyden against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.8.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 226/43
By decision of 8 August 1997, the director of CEDEFOP                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
adopted the applicant’s transfer to CEDEFOP to an English-
language translator post with effect from 1 September 1997.
                                                                         — Annul the implied rejection of the request submitted by
                                                                              the applicant on 23 March 1998, registered on 26 March
Following his transfer the applicant noticed that CEDEFOP had                 1998, in which he requested the appointing authority to
not, contrary to the requirements of Article 5(2), set up, for                promote him to Grade A4 with step calculated in accord-
posts of translators and interpreters, a Language Service within              ance with the Staff Regulations;
category A, so that he was thus transferred by the decision of
8 August 1997 from an LA 6 post at the European Parliament               — Annul the decision not to promote the applicant to Grade
to an A 6 post at CEDEFOP. Accordingly, the applicant                         A4 with step calculated in accordance with the Staff
submitted a request to the director of CEDEFOP asking him to                  Regulations with retroactive effect from 10 October 1989
comply with Article 5(2) of the Staff Regulations or, if it                   in the 1998 promotion exercise, which followed from the
transpires that, following his transfer, he was appointed to a                exclusion of his name from the list of officials eligible for
post within the Language Service, that the director should state              promotion published in Administrative Notices No 1045
this clearly in writing. The applicant received neither a formal              of 3 August 1998;
reply to that request nor a reply to the complaint which
followed it.
                                                                         — Annul the decision expressly rejecting the two complaints
                                                                              brought by the applicant, registered on 28 October 1998
The applicant claims that:                                                    and 5 November 1998, against the above decisions, which
                                                                              was notified to the applicant on 8 March 1999 and taken
                                                                              by Commissioner Liikanen on 24 February 1999;
— the contested decisions infringe the second sentence of the
    second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations
    inasmuch as they do not state the grounds on which they              — Pay, as compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the sum
    are based. Furthermore. in the applicant’s view, the mere                 of BEF 500 000 (EUR 12 394.68) together with interest at
    fact that the contested decisions are implied rejections is               8 % per annum from the date of judgment until payment
    contrary to the undertakings formally made by the director                in full;
    of CEDEFOP;
                                                                         — Order the defendant to pay the costs.
— contrary to Article 5(2) of the Staff Regulations, CEDEFOP
    has not fulfilled its obligation to set up a Language Service
    within category A; and
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— the decision of CEDEFOP’s appointing authority not to set
    up such a service constitutes misuse of powers.
                                                                         The applicant, who entered the service of the Commission on
                                                                         1 April 1964, was promoted to Grade A5 on 1 January 1977.
                                                                         By letter of 23 March 1998 the applicant submitted a request
                                                                         for promotion to Grade A4.
                                                                         In support of his application, the applicant claims breach of:
                                                                         — Articles 25, second paragraph, 43 and 45 of the Staff
                                                                              Regulations, and
Action brought on 8 June 1999 by Luc Verheyden against
      the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         — the principle of equal concern for welfare and protection
                                                                              of legitimate expectations and the principle that all admin-
                         (Case T-138/99)                                      istrative decisions must be based on reasoning which is
                                                                              legal and relevant, that is to say, lawful, admissible and free
                                                                              from manifest errors of law or fact.
                         (1999/C 226/76)
                                                                         According to the applicant, the appointing authority mani-
                                                                         festly took account neither of his merits nor of his extraordi-
                   (Language of the case: French)                        nary seniority in grade, putting him in a completely abnormal
                                                                         administrative position, both with respect to a classic career
                                                                         open to any official in a situation identical with or comparable
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                to his, and with respect to his objective expectations and
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               merits.
European Communities on 8 June 1999 by Luc Verheyden,
residing in Angera, Italy, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.


title: Case F-95/14: Action brought on 17 September 2014  — ZZ v ECB

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/63

         Action brought on 17 September 2014 — ZZ v ECB
   (Case F-95/14)
   2014/C 421/93
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB not to grant the applicant an additional salary increase, in the context of the annual revision of salaries and bonuses for 2014.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Executive Board, adopted on 25 February 2014 and notified to the staff on 3 Mars 2014, not to grant the applicant an additional increase in salary for 2014;

               —

               annul the decision dismissing the special appeal dated 1July 2014 and received on 8 July 2014;

               —

               if necessary, annul the decision of the competent Head of Department/DG-H not to consider or propose the applicant for an Additional Salary Increase, notified implicitly by the decision of the Executive Board of 25 February 2014 and by the decision to dismiss the special appeal of 1 July 2014;

               —

               order compensation for the material damage consisting of the loss of an opportunity to obtain an Additional Salary Increase in 2014, evaluated at EUR 54  635 or alternatively annulment of the procedure leading up to the decision of 25 February 2014 and the organisation by the ECB of a new procedure for granting additional salary increases for 2014;

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 5  000;

               —

               order the ECB to pay the all the costs.


title: Case T-496/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2015 — McCullough v Cedefop (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the award of public contracts and the conclusion of the ensuing contracts — Request seeking the production of documents in the context of criminal proceedings — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2015 — McCullough v Cedefop
   (Case T-496/13) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the award of public contracts and the conclusion of the ensuing contracts - Request seeking the production of documents in the context of criminal proceedings - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process))
   (2015/C 245/19)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Colin Boyd McCullough (Thessalonica, Greece) (represented by: G. Matsos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (represented: initially by C. Lettmayr, acting as Agent, then by M. Fuchs, acting as Agent, and, initially, E. Petritsi, lawyer, then E. Petritsi and E. Roussou, then E. Roussou and P. Anestis, lawyers, and, lastly, P. Anestis)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Cedefop’s decision of 15 July 2013 refusing access to the minutes of its Governing Board, those of its Bureau and those of the ‘Knowledge Management System’ Steering Group for the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2005; for an order that Cedefop supply the requested documents and a request to authorise, pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 of the Council of 10 February 1975 establishing a European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (OJ 1975 L 39, p. 1), and to Article 1 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, the Greek national authorities to enter the premises and buildings of Cedefop, in accordance with the applicable Greek legislation, to investigate, search and confiscate in those premises and buildings, in order to obtain the requested documents and to investigate possible offences.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) of 15 July 2013 refusing access to the minutes of its Governing Board, of its Bureau and of the ‘Knowledge Management System’ Steering Group for the period 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2005 in so far as that decision refuses access to the minutes of the Governing Board and the Bureau, except as regards access to the surnames of the members of the Governing Board and the Bureau;

               2)

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3)

               Declares that Cedefop shall bear its own costs and orders it to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by Mr Colin Boyd McCullough;

               4)

               Declares that Mr McCullough shall bear one quarter of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case C-119/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 1 April 2009 — Société fiduciaire nationale d’expertise comptable v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics et de la fonction publique

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 1 April 2009 — Société fiduciaire nationale d’expertise comptable v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics et de la fonction publique
   (Case C-119/09)
   2009/C 141/49
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société fiduciaire nationale d’expertise comptable

      Defendant: Ministre du budget, des comptes publics et de la fonction publique

      Question referred

   Was Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (1) intended to proscribe, in respect of the regulated professions falling within its scope, any general prohibition [on commercial communications], whatever the form of commercial practice concerned, or does it leave the Member States the option of maintaining general prohibitions in respect of certain commercial practices, such as canvassing?

      (1)  OJ L 376, p. 36.


title: Case C-75/12: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Majali Abdel (Reference for a preliminary ruling — No description of the main proceedings — manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/8

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Majali Abdel
   (Case C-75/12) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - No description of the main proceedings - manifestly inadmissible)
   2012/C 303/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Giudice di Pace di Revere

      Party in the main proceedings

   Majali Abdel

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di Pace di Revere — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) and Article 4(3) TEU — National legislation imposing a fine on a foreign national who has entered national territory illegally or has stayed there illegally — Whether it is permissible to regard illegal stay as a criminal offence — Whether it is possible to substitute for the fine an order for immediate expulsion for a period of at least five years or a measure restricting freedom (‘permanenza domiciliare’) — Member States’ obligations during the period for transposition of a directive

      Operative part of the order

   The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Revere (Italy), by decision of 26 January 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: Case C-105/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 June 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services and free movement of capital — Articles 49 EC and 56 EC and Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement — Direct taxation — Taxation of interest received — Discriminatory treatment of non-residents — Burden of proof)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 June 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-105/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services and free movement of capital - Articles 49 EC and 56 EC and Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement - Direct taxation - Taxation of interest received - Discriminatory treatment of non-residents - Burden of proof)
   2010/C 221/02
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Afonso, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, J. Menezes Leitão and C. Guerra Santos, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and V. Kazlauskaitė-Švenčionienė, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 49 EC and 56 EC — Difference in treatment of taxation of interest paid to financial institutions depending on whether they are resident or not in Portuguese territory

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.


title: Case T-208/09: Action brought on 26 May 2009 — Mars v OHIM — Marc (MARC Marlon Abela Restaurant Corporation)

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/22

         Action brought on 26 May 2009 — Mars v OHIM — Marc (MARC Marlon Abela Restaurant Corporation)
   (Case T-208/09)
   2009/C 167/43
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Mars, Inc. (McLean, United States) (represented by: A. Bryson, Barrister and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marc Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      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 5 March 2009 in case R 1827/2007-2; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘MARC Marlon Abela Restaurant Corporation’, for goods and services in classes 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35 and 43

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

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registrations of the word and figurative marks ‘MARS’ for goods and services in classes 9, 29, 30, 32, and 35, respectively

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal (i) wrongly assumed (or found), with no evidential basis, that the trade marks concerned have a clear and specific meaning for the public in the Baltic States so that the public is capable of grasping it immediately. This led the Board, wrongly, to conclude that there was a conceptual difference between the marks which outweighed the visual and aural similarities and justified a conclusion that the trade marks concerned were nor similar; and (ii) failed to take any or a proper account of the circumstances of sale of the goods and services in question and the impact of such circumstances upon (a) the appreciation of the visual and phonetic similarities between the trade marks; and (b) the relative weight to be given, in the global assessment of similarity/likelihood of confusion, to the different elements (visual, aural, conceptual) by which similarity is to be judged. Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly rejected the opposition in respect of this ground on the basis that the applicant had failed to establish the existence of all the cumulative conditions necessary for the application of the said provision. Infringement of Article 8(4) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(4) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed that the likelihood of confusion is to be assessed according to the same principles for the purposes of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(4) of Council Regulation 40/94.


title: Case T-581/14: Action brought on 30 July 2014 — Vierling v OHMI — IP Leanware (BRAINCUBE)

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/21

         Action brought on 30 July 2014 — Vierling v OHMI — IP Leanware (BRAINCUBE)
   (Case T-581/14)
   2014/C 351/26
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Yvonne Vierling (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and D. Kipping, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IP Leanware (Issoire, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 April 2014 given in Case R 1486/2013-2.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BRAINCUBE’ for goods and services in Classes 9 and 38 — Community trade mark application No 10 461 713

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The earlier German trade mark of the word mark ‘Braincube’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case T-452/14: Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2015 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission (Medicinal products for human use — Orphan medicinal products — Marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Cholic Acid FGK (renamed Kolbam) — Therapeutic indications — Market exclusivity — Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2015 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission
   (Case T-452/14) (1)

   ((Medicinal products for human use - Orphan medicinal products - Marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Cholic Acid FGK (renamed Kolbam) - Therapeutic indications - Market exclusivity - Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000))
   (2015/C 245/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratoires CTRS (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Utges Manley and M. Vickers, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, P. Mihaylova and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 2375 of 4 April 2014 granting, in exceptional circumstances, marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Cholic Acid FGK — cholic acid’, an orphan medicinal product for human use, as amended by Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 6508 of 11 September 2014 transferring and amending the marketing authorisation granted in exceptional circumstances by Decision C(2014) 2375 for ‘Kolbam — cholic acid’, an orphan medicinal product for human use, in so far as that decision in substance indicates that that medicinal product is authorised for the therapeutic indications for Orphacol or, in the alternative, for annulment of Article 1 of that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 2375 of 4 April 2014 granting, in exceptional circumstances, marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Cholic Acid FGK — cholic acid’, an orphan medicinal product for human use, as amended by Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 6508 of 11 September 2014 transferring and amending the marketing authorisation granted in exceptional circumstances by Decision C(2014) 2375 for ‘Kolbam — cholic acid’, an orphan medicinal product for human use;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Laboratoires CTRS;

               3.

               Orders ASK Pharmaceuticals GmbH to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case C-368/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Assens Havn v Navigators Management (UK) Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in insurance matters — National legislation providing, on certain conditions, for an injured person’s right to bring legal proceedings directly against the insurer of the person responsible for an accident — Agreement on jurisdiction concluded between the insurer and the party which caused the damage)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/10

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Assens Havn v Navigators Management (UK) Limited
   (Case C-368/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in insurance matters - National legislation providing, on certain conditions, for an injured person’s right to bring legal proceedings directly against the insurer of the person responsible for an accident - Agreement on jurisdiction concluded between the insurer and the party which caused the damage))
   (2017/C 293/13)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Højesteret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Assens Havn

      Defendant: Navigators Management (UK) Limited

      Operative part of the judgment

   Point 5 of Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, considered in conjunction with Article 14, point 2(a), thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a victim entitled to bring a direct action against the insurer of the party which caused the harm which he has suffered is not bound by an agreement on jurisdiction concluded between the insurer and that party.

      (1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.


title: Case F-123/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 April 2014  — Lecolier v Commission

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/65

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 April 2014 — Lecolier v Commission
   (Case F-123/13) (1)

   2014/C 421/98
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014, p. 54.


title: Case C-127/04: Referencefor a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division by orderof that court dated 18 November 2003,amended on 27 February 2004, in the case of MasterDeclan O'Byrne against Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd and Aventis Pasteur SA.

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/35

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division by order of that court dated 18 November 2003, amended on 27 February 2004, in the case of Master Declan O'Byrne against Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd and Aventis Pasteur SA.
   (Case C-127/04)
   (2004/C 106/60)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by an order of the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division, dated 18 November 2003, amended on 27 February 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 8 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Master Declan O'Byrne against Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd and Aventis Pasteur SA on the following questions:

               1.

               On a true interpretation of Article 11 of the Council Directive (1), when a product is supplied pursuant to a contract of sale by a French manufacturer to its wholly owned English subsidiary, and then by the English company to another entity, is the product put into circulation:

                           (a)

                           when it leaves the French company; or

                           (b)

                           when it reaches the English company; or

                           (c)

                           when it leaves the English company; or

                           (d)

                           when it reaches the entity receiving the product from the English company?

               2.

               Where proceedings asserting rights conferred on the claimant pursuant to the Council Directive in respect of an allegedly defective product are instituted against one company (A) in the mistaken belief that A was the producer of the product when in fact the producer of the product was not A but another company (B), is it permissible for a Member State under its national laws to confer a discretionary power on its courts to treat such proceedings as ‘proceedings against the producer’ within the meaning of Article 11 of the Council Directive?

               3.

               Does Article 11 of the Council Directive, correctly interpreted, permit a Member State to confer a discretionary power on a court to allow B to be substituted for A as a defendant to proceedings of the kind referred to in Question 2 above (‘the relevant proceedings’) in circumstances where:

                           (a)

                           the period of 10 years referred to in Article 11 has expired;

                           (b)

                           the relevant proceedings were instituted against A before the 10 year period expired; and

                           (c)

                           no proceedings were instituted against B before the expiry of the 10 year period in respect of the product which caused the damage alleged by the claimant?

      (1)  Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ L 210, 07.08.1985, p. 29).


title: Action brought on 25 February 1997 by the Région Wallone against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-95/97)

text:
 No C 252/14           I EN [               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  16 . 8 . 97
 Lisboa ( Local Civil Court, Lisbon) for a preliminary ruling           1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
 in the proceedings pending before that court between
 Banco de Fomento e Exterior SA and Amândio Mauricio
                                                                       2.    The costs are reserved.
 Martins Pechim, Maria de Luz Lima Barros Raposo
 Pechim and Confecções Têxteis de Vouzela Ld? ( CTV) on
 the interpretation of Articles 59, 90 and 92 of the EC
 Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
 Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
 Almeida ( Rapporteur ), J. L. Murray and L. Sevón
 ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.                  Action brought on 25 February 1997 by the Region
 Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,               Wallone against the Commission of the European
 G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R.                                              Communities
 Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                                           ( Case C-95/97)
 General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 30 June
 1997, in which it has held:                                                                      ( 97/C 252/27)
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
 The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the
 Tribunal Cível da Comarca de Lisboa is inadmissible.
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                       the European Communities on 25 February 1997 by the
                                                                       Region Wallone, represented by Jean-Marie de Backer,
 (') OJ No C 108 , 5 . 4. 1997 .                                       Olivier Ralet and Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels
                                                                       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                       Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                       The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission's
                                                                       decision of 18 December 1996 entitled ' Steel ECSC —
                                                                       Forges de Clabecq'.
      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
                         of 21 March 1997                              By order of 21 March 1997 the Court referred the case to
                                                                       the Court of First Instance .
in Case C-l 10/97 R: Kingdom of the Netherlands v.
Council of the European Union, supported by
Commission of the European Communities and Italian
                              Republic
 (Application for interim measures — System of association
 of the overseas countries and territories — Safeguard                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
           measure — Serious and irreparable loss)                    Tribunal Administrativo ( Second Chamber) by judgment
                            97/C 252/26 )
                                                                      of that court of 9 April 1997 in the case of Fazenda
                                                                      Publica against Antram — Associaçao Nacional de
                                                                             Transportes Públicos Rodoviários de Mercadorias
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                ( Case C-205/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/28 )
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
          published in the European Court Reports)                    European Communities by judgment of the Second
                                                                      Chamber of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
                                                                      ( Supreme Administrative Court) of 9 April 1997, which
In Case C-l 10/97 R: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent:               was received at the Court Registry on 29 May 1997, for a
Marc Fierstra ) v. Council of the European Union (Agents:             preliminary ruling in the case of Fazenda Publica against
Ramon Torrent, Jürgen Huber and Guus Houttuin ),                      Antram — Associaçao Nacional de Transportes Públicos
supported by Commission of the European Communities                   Rodoviários de Mercadorias on the following questions :
( Agent: Thomas van Rijn ) and Italian Republic ( Agent:
Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by Francesca Quadri,
Avvocato dello Stato) — application for suspension of                  1 . Does Article 243 et seq. of the CCC (') preclude
                                                                            a national court from ordering suspension of
operation, as regards imports of rice originating in the
Dutch Antilles and Aruba, of Council Regulation ( EC )
                                                                            implementation of a decision taken by that customs
No 304/97 of 17 February 1997 introducing safeguard                         authority, against which an appeal has been lodged,
                                                                            directly, that is without the need to submit such an
measures in respect of rice originating in the overseas
                                                                            application to the customs authority ?
countries and territories ( OJ No L 51 , 21 . 2 . 1997, p. 1 ),
or other interim measures — the President of the Court
has made an order on 21 March 1997, the operative part                2 . Does Article 243 et seq. of the CCC preclude a
of which is as follows :                                                    national court from suspending a decision taken by the


title: Joined Cases C-501/06 P, C-513/06 P, C-515/06 P and C-519/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2009 — GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited, formerly Glaxo Wellcome plc (C-501/06 P), Commission of the European Communities (C-513/06 P), European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC) (C-515/06 P), Asociación de exportadores españoles de productos farmacéuticos (Aseprofar) (C-519/09 P) v Commission of the European Communities, European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC), Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure eV, Spain Pharma SA, Asociación de exportadores españoles de productos farmacéuticos (Aseprofar) (Appeals — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Restriction of parallel trade in medicines — Article 81(1) EC — Restriction of competition by object — National price regulations — Replacement of grounds — Article 81(3) EC — Contribution to promoting technical progress — Review — Burden of proof — Statement of reasons — Interest in bringing proceedings)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2009 — GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited, formerly Glaxo Wellcome plc (C-501/06 P), Commission of the European Communities (C-513/06 P), European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC) (C-515/06 P), Asociación de exportadores españoles de productos farmacéuticos (Aseprofar) (C-519/09 P) v Commission of the European Communities, European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC), Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure eV, Spain Pharma SA, Asociación de exportadores españoles de productos farmacéuticos (Aseprofar)
   (Joined Cases C-501/06 P, C-513/06 P, C-515/06 P and C-519/06 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Restriction of parallel trade in medicines - Article 81(1) EC - Restriction of competition by object - National price regulations - Replacement of grounds - Article 81(3) EC - Contribution to promoting technical progress - Review - Burden of proof - Statement of reasons - Interest in bringing proceedings)
   2009/C 282/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited, formerly Glaxo Wellcome plc, (represented by: I. Forrester QC, S. Martínez Lage, abogado, A. Komninos, dikigoros, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Christoforou, F. Castillo de la Torre and E. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents), European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC) (represented by: M. Hartmann-Rüppel and W. Rehmann, Rechtsanwälte), Asociación de exportadores españoles de productos farmacéuticos (Aseprofar) (represented by: M. Araujo Boyd and J. Buendía Sierra, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by T. Christoforou, F. Castillo de la Torre and E. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents), European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC) (represented by: M. Hartmann-Rüppel and W. Rehmann, Rechtsanwälte), Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure eV (represented by: W. Rehmann, Rechtsanwalt), Spain Pharma SA, Asociación de exportadores españoles de productos farmacéuticos (Aseprofar) (represented by: M. Araujo Boyd and J. Buendía Sierra, abogados)

      Intervener in support of the Commission: Republic of Poland (represented by: E. Ośniecka-Tamecka, M. Kapko and K. Majcher, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 27 September 2006 in Case T-168/01 GlaxoSmithKline Services v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance annulled in part Commission Decision C(2001)1202 final of 8 May 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Cases IV/36.957/F3 Glaxo Wellcome, IV/36.997/F3 Aseprofar and Fedifar, IV/37.121/F3 Spain Pharma, IV/37.138/F3 BAI and IV/37.380/F3 EAEPC) — Prices imposed by the applicant on wholesalers for the sale of its medicines outside the Spanish system of prices fixed by the health services

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals brought by GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited, formerly Glaxo Wellcome plc, the Commission of the European Communities, the European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC) and the Asociación de exportadores españoles de productos farmacéuticos (Aseprofar);

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the respective procedures;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

      OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 June 2001 in Case C-439/00: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 98/4/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
C 212/8                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          28.7.2001
The existence of a maximum which those charges cannot exceed is              1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
not sufficient to make them duties paid by way of fees or dues if that             all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary
maximum is not established reasonably by reference to the cost of the              to comply with Directive 98/4/EC of the European Parliament
service in respect of which the charges are levied.                                and of the Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive
                                                                                93/38/EEC coordinating the procurement procedures of entities
                                                                                operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommuni-
Furthermore, a Member State cannot, without making the charges in                  cations sectors, the French Republic has failed to comply with
question cease to be duties paid by way of fees or dues, introduce into            its obligations under that directive.
the scale of charges payable for a service rendered an element of
solidarity between large and small companies, by establishing, for           2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
one and the same service, a higher charge for capital companies with
significant share capital than for those with less share capital, where
that difference in the charge bears no relation to the cost of the service.  (1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 29 May 2001
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             in Case C-1/00 SA: Cotecna Inspection SA v Commission
                           (Fourth Chamber)                                                  of the European Communities (1)
                            of 21 June 2001                                  (Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order on
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities)
in Case C-439/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                       ties v French Republic (1)                                                       (2001/C 212/13)
(Failure by Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive                                    (Language of the case: French)
98/4/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
                            (2001/C 212/12)                                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                      (Language of the case: French)                         In Case C-1/00 SA: Cotecna Inspection SA, established in
                                                                             Geneva (Switzerland), represented by J. H. J. Bourgeois, Avocat
                                                                             v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       M. De Pauw and B. Martenczuk) — application for authoris-
                     in the European Court Reports)                          ation to serve a garnishee order on the Commission of
                                                                             the European Communities — the Court, composed of:
                                                                             G. C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola,
In Case C-439/00: Commission of the European Communities                     M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Presidents of Chambers,
(Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agent: G. de Bergues and                D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen,
S. Pailler) — application for a declaration that, by failing to              F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), J. N. Cunha
adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures                  Rodrigues and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
necessary to comply with Directive 98/4/EC of the European                   Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given an
Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 amending                   order on 29 May 2001, in which it:
Directive 93/38/EEC coordinating the procurement procedures
of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and                    1)    Dismisses the application.
telecommunications sectors (OJ 1998 L 101, p. 1) or, at all
events, by failing to communicate the same to the Commission,                2)    Orders Cotecna Inspection SA to pay the costs.
the French Republic has failed to comply with its obligations
under that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed
of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr                     (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
(Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; J. Mischo,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 21 June 2001, in which it:


title: Case C-439/12: Order of the President of the Court of 26 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Karin Gawelczyk v Generali Lebensversicherung AG

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 26 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Karin Gawelczyk v Generali Lebensversicherung AG
   (Case C-439/12) (1)

   2014/C 184/27
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 389, 15.12.2012.