title: Action brought on 13 October 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-351/97)

text:
22 . 11 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 357/23
Action brought on 6 October 1997 by the Commission                      the European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                      Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service
                                  Belgium                               in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                           ( Case C-347/97)                             of its Legal Service, 254 Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
                                                                        Luxembourg.
                             ( 97/C 357/40 )
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 — declare that ( i ) by allowing, contrary to Article 2 of
on 6 October 1997 by the Commission of the European                          Regulation ( EEC ) No 2252/90 ('), goods, for which a
Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, Legal                           refund had been granted on their importation from the
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                    Netherlands, to be introduced into the Federal
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                         Republic of Germany without a levy corresponding to
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                   the Community level of prices being raised and paid
                                                                             over to the Community and ( ii ) by abolishing all
                                                                            customs formalities for the movement of goods within
The Commission of the European Communities claims                            Germany and not adopting the measures required to
that the Court should :
                                                                             implement Regulation ( EEC ) No 2252/90, the Federal
                                                                             Republic of Germany failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                             under the EC Treaty,
— declare that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate
     measures necessary to comply with Article 6 of
     Council Directive 91 / 157/EEC of 18 March 1991                    — order the defendant to pay the costs.
     on batteries and accumulators containnig certain
     dangerous substances ('), the Kingdom of Belgium has
     failed to fulfill its obligations under that Directive,            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                        The     Federal       Republic     of Germany has  infringed
                                                                        Community law in that:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        — it has failed to levy duty on imported butter, and has
                                                                             not assessed a sum, which is lost to the Community
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                          budget, of DM 12 684 000 and paid that sum, with
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of                          interest, to the Community,
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to
achieve the results provided for therein before the expiry              — all customs formalities at the internal German border
of the period prescribed for doing so. The programmes                       were abolished before reunification on 3 October
referred to in Article 6 of the Directive should have been
                                                                             1990 and the measures required to implement
drawn up and communicated to the Commission by                               Regulation ( EEC ) No 2252/90 were not adopted .
17 September 1992 at the latest and it is neither disputed
or disputable that the Kingdom of Belgium did not take
all the national measures necessary in order to draw up                 (') OJ L 203 , 1 . 8 . 1990, p. 61 .
the programmes in question.
(') OJ L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 38 .
                                                                        Action brought on 13 October 1997 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
Action brought on 7 October 1997 by the Commission of                                              ( Case C-351/97)
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                                                ( 97/C 357/42 )
                               of Germany
                             Case C-348/97 )
                                                                        An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                             ( 97/C 357/41 )                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 13 October 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities, represented by Gerard
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                   Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Communities on 7 October 1997 by the Commission of                      Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 357/24                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22 . 11 . 97
The Commission claims that the Court should :                              comply with Council Directive 92/104/EEC of
                                                                           3 December ' 1992 concerning the minimum
— declare that, by failing to bring into force within                      requirements for improving the safety and health
     the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                       protection of workers in the mineral-extracting
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                    industries (') and/or by failing to inform the
                                                                           Commission thereof,
     Council Directive 94/28/EC of 23 June 1994 laying
     down the principles relating to the zootechnical and
     genealogical conditions applicable to imports from                    and
     third countries of animals, their semen, ova and
     embryos, and amending Directive 77/504/EEC on                    — order Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure.
     pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species ( ! ),
     the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
     its obligations pursuant to Article 13 of Directive 94/          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     28/EC,
                                                                      Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a Directive
— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                      shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
     costs .                                                          Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
                                                                      Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
                                                                      down in the Directive . That period expired on 3 December
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   1994 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
                                                                      necessary to comply with the Directive referred to in the
Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty                conclusions of the Commission .
establishing the European Community, a Directive is
binding on each Member State to which it is addressed as              (') Council Directive 92/ 104/EEC of 3 December 1992 on the
to the result to be achieved. Under the first paragraph of                minimum requirements for improving the safety and health
Article 5 of the Treaty, Member States are to take all                    protection of workers in surface and underground mineral
appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to                   extracting industries ( 12th individual Directive within the
ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the                   meaning of Article 16 ( 1 ) of Directive 89/391 /EEC ( OJ L 404,
                                                                          31 . 12 . 1992 , p. 10 ).
Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of
the Community. Under Article 13 of the Directive,
Member States are obliged to bring into force the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with the Directive by 1 July 1995 and inform the
Commission thereof forthwith . The Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg has not yet informed the Commission of any                 Action brought on 13 October 1997 by the Commission
measures it may have taken in accordance with that                             of the European Communities against Ireland
provision.                                                                                ( Case C-353/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/44 )
(') OJ L 178 , 12 . 7. 1994, p . 66 .
                                                                      An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities on 13 October 1997
                                                                      by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                      represented by Mr Pieter Jan Kuijper, Legal Adviser, acting
Action brought on 13 October 1997 by the Commission                   as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
         of the European Communities against Ireland                  the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, member of its
                         ( Case C-352/97 )                            Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
                           ( 97/C 357/43 )
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of             — find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
Justice of the European Communities on 13 October 1997                     under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws,
by the Commission of the European Communities,                             regulations or administrative provisions necessary
represented by Mr Pieter Jan Kuijper, Legal Adviser, acting                to comply with Council Directive 92/91 /EEC of
as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                     3 November 1992 concerning the minimum
the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, member of its                       requirements for improving the safety and health
Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.                                   protection of workers in the mineral-extracting
                                                                           industries through drilling ('), and/or by failing to
                                                                           inform the Commission thereof,
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           and
— find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
    under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws,
    regulations or administrative provisions necessary to             — order Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure .


title: Case T-124/17: Action brought on 22 February 2017 — Enosi Syntaxiouchon Tameiou Asfaliseon Michanikon kai Ergolipton v ECB

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/37

         Action brought on 22 February 2017 — Enosi Syntaxiouchon Tameiou Asfaliseon Michanikon kai Ergolipton v ECB
   (Case T-124/17)
   (2017/C 151/48)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Enosi Syntaxiouchon Tameiou Asfaliseon Michanikon kai Ergolipton (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Miliarakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               hold this action to be admissible;·

               —

               order the European Central Bank (ECB) to pay to the account of the Greek Engineers’ and Public Contractors’ Pension Fund (TSMEDE) sector/subsector for the current insurance provider ΕFΚΑ the sum of: (a) EUR 1 606 539 086,28 with respect to the nominal value of the share capital of the former ΕΤΑΑ and (b) with respect to the sum of EUR 84 285 086,36 which related to bonds, with legal interest from the lodging of this action until payment (in the alternative, to order the ECB to pay the amount of compensation indicated by the requested expert’s report);

               —

               to instruct, in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, an expert’s report on the determination of the exact amount of the loss sustained by the members of the applicant fund and in any event of the TSMEDE sector/subsector for the former ΕΤΑΑ and now ΕFΚΑ;

               —

               order the defendant to produce/disclose the agreement of 15 February 2012 with the Hellenic Republic,·and

               —

               order the ECB to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action the applicant relies on the following pleas:

               1.

               This action maintains that the non-contractual liability of the ECB is engaged to a social security institution, that is a financial institution, where there was no Private Sector Involvement (PSI), but Official Sector Involvement (OSI).

               2.

               This action highlights the relationship of the Bank of Greece, as a member of the European System of Central Banks (ΕSCB), with the ECB and consequently the causal link with respect to OSI implementation by the Bank of Greece and the responsibility, by omission, of the ECB to control the application of OSI by a member of the ΕSCB. This action also highlights the responsibility of the ECB with respect to the operation of the Collective Action Clauses — CACs to the detriment of social security institutions.

               3.

               This action maintains that the non-contractual liability of the ECB is engaged, with respect to the fact that it omitted to repeal, in good time and in any event as from 21 July 2011 (in the alternative, as from 26 October 2011), the Decision of 6 May 2010 (ECB 2010/3 -2010/268/ΕU), whereby it particularly guaranteed ‘irrespective of any external credit assessment’ (with reference to the assessments of Standard & Poor’s, Fitch and Moody’s rating agencies) the validity of Greek bonds. With a tragic delay the ECB only on 27 February 2012 repealed the Decision of 6 May 2010, by means of Decision (ECB) 2012/133/ΕU. Consequently, for a long period of time the ECB supported, by its omission, legitimate expectations in Greek bonds.

               4.

               This action highlights the fact that by means of the invocation of OSI, the ECB excluded itself from the restructuring of Greek sovereign debt, as also by its interposition the European Central Banks were excluded. That exclusion is however contrary to the principle of equal treatment.

               5.

               This action maintains that it is not possible for a Member State of the European Union and more particularly the Eurozone, to undertake ex proprio motu within its domestic legal order (Parliament — Council of Ministers –Ministerial Decisions) a unilateral restructuring of its sovereign debt, without the authorisation or tacit consent of the ECB; there would otherwise be financial chaos. In the present case there existed the tacit consent of the ECB, and consequently its non-contractual liability is engaged with respect to losses amounting to 53.5 %, a level that strikes at the heart of the right to property. It is manifest that there is a causal link between the responsibility, by omission, of the ECB for the losses at issue, the culpability of its agencies and its non-contractual liability.


title: Case C-138/06: Action brought on  10 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/30

         Action brought on 10 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-138/06)
   (2006/C 131/56)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, relating to the assessment and management of noise (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive:

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 18 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 189, p. 12


title: Case T-13/17: Action brought on 12 January 2017 — Europa Terra Nostra v Parliament

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/40

         Action brought on 12 January 2017 — Europa Terra Nostra v Parliament
   (Case T-13/17)
   (2017/C 063/53)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Europa Terra Nostra e.V. (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article I.4.1 of the defendant’s decision of 12 December 2016 (Reference: FINS-2017-30) concerning the reduction of the pre-financing amount to 33 % of the specified maximum amount and ordering the lodging of a guarantee;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant raises two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of the Treaties and of the rules of law relating to their application

                           —

                           The applicant claims, that under Article 134(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1) and Article 206(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012, (2) guarantees are not at all required for low-value grants.

                           —

                           Moreover, the defendant has no interest in obtaining a guarantee because the review request brought against the ‘Alliance for Peace and Freedom’ (APF) is entirely devoid of substance and manifestly unfounded.

                           —

                           In addition, the defendant deliberately delayed the review procedure brought against the APF for half a year and thereby itself occasioned its alleged need for a guarantee.

                           —

                           Furthermore, the measures are disproportionate because the applicant is not in a position to provide guarantees and is threatened with the loss of its economic existence through the withdrawal of the financial assistance, which gives rise to a distortion of political competition. This constitutes a serious infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights to freedom of expression and association (Articles 11 and 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).

               2.

               Second plea in law: misuse of powers
               In addition, the applicant alleges a misuse of powers by the defendant. It takes the view that the defendant’s measures amount to a purely politically motivated manoeuvre designed to withdraw financial assistance from an unpopular political party, including the foundation affiliated to it, and thereby to manipulate political competition within the European Union.

      (1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 29 April 1998 by Luc Verheyden against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-71/98)

text:
25.7.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 234/29
Ð in the alternative, annul those parts of the decision            Ð Errors of law in the application of Article 86,
    that the Court finds erroneous or unsafe; and                      inasmuch as cabinet provisions on a free-on-loan basis
                                                                       do, in the circumstances of this industry, represent the
                                                                       normal means by which suppliers of impulse ice cream
Ð order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.                   compete and should be objectively justified.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Ð Errors of law in the failure to respect property rights
                                                                       as required by general principles of law and under
The application concerns the prohibition of the practice of            Article 222 of the EC Treaty. HB submits in this
freezer cabinet exclusivity as adopted by the applicant Van            regard that the contested decision seeks to deprive it in
Den Bergh Foods Ltd (formerly HB and here referred to as               whole or substantial part of the value and enjoyment
such), a subsidiary of the Unilever N.V./PLC group, in the             of its investments in cabinets, which have no purpose
market for wrapped single-portion ice cream intended for               other than to support the storage and sale of the HB's
immediate consumption (impulse ice cream') in the                     ice creams at point of sale, so that to prohibit the
Republic of Ireland. Freezer-cabinet exclusivity involves              exclusivity clause is to deprive the applicant of rights
the provision by an ice-cream supplier of freezer cabinets,            representing the normal incidents of its cabinet
which are paid for and maintained by the supplier, to                  ownership.
retailers to be used exclusively for the sale of the impulse
ice-cream products of that supplier.                               Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decision
                                                                   has been taken in breach of Article 190 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                   and of a number of fundamental principles of Community
The decision that whenever the applicant supplies to a
                                                                   law, such as protection of legitimate expectations,
retailer one or more HB owned and maintained cabinets
                                                                   subsidiarity, legal certainty, proportionality and equal
for the stocking of impulse ice cream and that retailer
                                                                   treatment.
does not also have his own cabinet or one supplied by a
third-party ice-cream manufacturer, the exclusivity term of
the agreement under which the cabinet is supplied
infringes Article 85(1), and the inducement to the retailer
to accept the supply by HB of a cabinet (subject to a
condition of exclusivity) and its maintenance without
direct charges infringes Article 86. Moreover, the request         Action brought on 29 April 1998 by Luc Verheyden
for an exemption of the exclusivity term under                       against the Commission of the European Communities
Article 85(3) is rejected.                                                                (Case T-71/98)
                                                                                (98/C 234/58)
The applicant's pleas in law and main arguments can be
summarized as follows:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Ð Manifest errors of assessment of facts, leading to
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
    errors of law. It is submitted on this point that the
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
    Commission is wrong to attribute a foreclosing effect
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 29 April 1998
    to agreements terminable at will by deeming them to
                                                                   by Luc Verheyden, residing at Angera (Italy), represented
    give rise to a so-called de facto tie', and by
                                                                   by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
    concluding on the basis of HB's popularity as a
                                                                   service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
    supplier of impulse ice cream that retail outlets are in
                                                                   Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
    consequence deprived of the opportunity to replace
    freezer cabinets supplied by HB or to install further
    cabinets alongside the HB cabinet. On the contrary,            The applicant claims that the Court should:
    the number of retail outlets (even in the smallest size
    category) with two or more cabinets is substantial and         Ð annul the decision of 10 July 1997, signed by Mr
    has been increasing over time.                                     Holtbecker, refusing the applicant any compensation
                                                                       for the use of his personal vehicle in the performance
Ð Errors of law in the application of Article 85(1).                   of his duties or on the occasion thereof;
    According to the applicant, the basic form of cabinet
    agreement does not involve a restriction of                    Ð annul the decision implicitly rejecting the complaint
    competition and the exclusivity' provision similarly              submitted by the applicant against that refusal on
    falls outside that provision. Secondly, Article 85(1)              29 September 1997, which was registered as having
    will only apply to the HB cabinet agreements if they               been received on that date;
    foreclose the market to new entrants or to those
    seeking to build market share to a degree and extent
    inconsistent with non-applicability of the prohibition         Ð order the defendant to pay compensation amounting
    under Article 85(1), which should not be the case.                 to LIT 74 254 000 together with compensatory
                                                                       interest at the annual rate of 8 %, to be calculated in
                                                                       respect of the period from 24 March until the date of
Ð Errors of law in the assessment under Article 85(3).                 payment in full;
 ---pagebreak--- C 234/30             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25.7.98
Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs.                       with Italian legislation, and were approved by it on 7 July
                                                                   1994. In the meantime, the abovementioned doctor
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                brought an action before the courts in Italy against the
                                                                   applicant seeking an order enjoining him to pay said fees
                                                                   and expenses.
The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 25 and 71 of
the Staff Regulations and of Annex VII thereof, in
particular Articles 14b and 15, and breach of the principle        In support of his application the applicant claims that the
of equality and of the principle that all administrative           following have been breached:
decisions must be based on a lawful and relevant
statement of reasons; he maintains that no valid statement         Ð the first paragraph of Article 8 of Annex II to the Staff
of reasons was given for the contested decision.                       Regulations;
                                                                   Ð the first paragraph of Article 23(2) of the Rules on the
                                                                       Insurance of Officials of the European Communities
                                                                       against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational
                                                                       Disease;
Action brought on 5 May 1998 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni
  against the Commission of the European Communities               Ð the duty of care incumbent on the Commission;
                       (Case T-75/98)
                        (98/C 234/59)                              Ð the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and
                                                                       to observe reasonable periods' under the Declaration
                                                                       of Human Rights, in view of the fact that the two
               (Language of the case: Italian)                         Committees took years to complete reach their
                                                                       findings.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 May 1998 by
Arnaldo Lucaccioni, represented by Mauro Cimino, of the
Fermo Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Jean Tonnar, 29 Rue du FosseÂ, Esch-sur-
                                                                   Action brought on 13 May 1998 by Claudine Hamptaux
Alzette.
                                                                     against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-76/98)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (98/C 234/60)
1. order the defendant to pay the costs of the
    proceedings, that is LIT 35 950 million, together with                        (Language of the case: French)
    the interest and legal costs accrued, as well as to
    refund the costs incurred by Dr Cognigni as a result of        An action against the Commission of the European
    participating in the Medical Committee;                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 13 May 1998
2. order the defendant to make good non-material                   by Claudine Hamptaux, residing at WoluweÂ-St-Lambert
    damage caused in the amount of six times the amount            (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar,
    mentioned in paragraph 1 above, including interest             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    and other costs;                                               Chambers of Christian Kremer, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine.
3. order the defendant to pay the costs.                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Ð annul the decision, adopted on 30 January 1998 (and
                                                                       notified on 11 February 1998), expressly rejecting the
                                                                       complaint made by the applicant to the appointing
The present action seeks to obtain payment of a principal              authority on 9 October 1997 by which she contested
sum and interest thereon by way of fees and related                    the following two decisions:
expenses for the doctor appointed by the applicant to the
Invalidity Committee and to the Medical Committee in                   Ð the decision (notified to the applicant on 9 July
the procedures for assessing invalidity and recognizing                    1997 and published in Administrative Notices
occupational diseases respectively.                                        No 998 of 8 August 1997) not to include the
                                                                           applicant in the list of officials most deserving of
The applicant states in this regard that upon the                          promotion to grade B 2 in the 1997 promotions
conclusion of the Invalidity Committee and the Medical                     procedure;
Committee, the doctor appointed by him applied in vain
to the administration for the fees for his services. The fees          Ð the decision (published in Administrative Notices
and expenses in question were submitted to the Consiglio                   No 999 of 12 August 1997) listing the officials
dell'Ordine dei Medici (Medical Council) in accordance                     promoted to grade B 2 in the 1997 promotions


title: Case T-213/06: Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Euro-Information v OHIM (word mark CYBERGESTION )

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/12

         Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Euro-Information v OHIM (word mark ‘CYBERGESTION’)
   (Case T-213/06)
   (2006/C 249/30)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Européenne de traitement de l'information SAS (Euro-Information) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: A. Jacquet, J. Schouman and P. Greffe, lawyers)

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

               —

               annulment in its entirety of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 May 2006, Case R 68/2006-1, which refused to register ‘CYBERGESTION’ as a Community trade mark, under application No 4 114 716, in respect of all the goods and services applied for in Classes 9, 36 and 38;

               —

               registration of ‘CYBERGESTION’ as a Community trade mark, under application No 4 114 716, in respect of all the goods and services applied for.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘CYBERGESTION’ in respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 36 and 38 (application No 4 114 716)

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal to register

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant claims that, contrary to the finding of the Board of Appeal of OHIM in the contested decision, its mark is arbitrary and is sufficiently distinctive in relation to the goods and services applied for to meet the requirements of Council Regulation No 40/94.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 24 October 1997 in Case T-244/94: Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (ECSC - Action for annulment - State aid - Individual decisions authorizing the grant of State aid to steel undertakings - Misuse of power - Protection of legitimate expectations - Incompatibility with Treaty provisions - Discrimination - Inadequate statement of reasons - Breach of rights of the defence - Articles 4 (b) and (c) and 15 and the first and second paragraphs of Article 95 of the Treaty)

text:
 C 387/ 16               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                20 . 12 . 97
 4 . orders the Council, the Federal Republic of Germany                 Tiili, A. Potocki and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H.
      and the Italian Republic to bear their own costs.                  Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 October
                                                                          1997, in which it:
 (') OJ C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
                                                                          1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                         2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs of the defendant
                                                                              and of the intervener Ilva Laminati Piani SpA;
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 24 October 1997                              3 . orders the Council, the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian
                                                                              Republic, SSAB Svenskt Stal AB and Det Danske
 in Case T-243/94: British Steel pic v. Commission of the                     Stålvalseværk A/S to bear their own costs.
                     European Communities (')
 (ECSC — Action for annulment — State aid — Individual                   (■) OJ C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994 .
 decisions authorizing the grant of State aid to steel
 undertakings — Lack of competence — Protection of
legitimate expectations — Incompatibility with Treaty
provisions — Discrimination — Inadequate statement of
reasons — Breach of the rights of the defence —
Articles 4 (b) and (c) and 15 and the first and second
            paragraphs of Article 95 of the Treaty)                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                            ( 97/C 387/26 )                                                      of 24 October 1997
                                                                         in Case T-244/94: Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl and
                 (Language of the case: English)                            Others v. Commission of the European Communities (')
                                                                         (ECSC — Action for annulment — State aid — Individual
                                                                         decisions authorizing the grant of State aid to steel
In Case T-243/94 : British Steel pic, established in London,             undertakings — Misuse of power — Protection of
represented by Richard Plender QC, of the Bar of England                 legitimate expectations — Incompatibility with Treaty
and Wales, and by William Sibree, Solicitor, with an                    provisions — Discrimination — Inadequate statement of
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     reasons — Breach of rights of the defence — Articles 4 (b)
Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 15 Cote d'Eich, supported by                 and (c) and 15 and the first and second paragraphs of
SSAB      Svenskt     Stal     AB,  established   in   Stockholm,                            Article 95 of the Treaty)
represented by John Boyce and Philip Raven , Solicitors,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                                                    ( 97/C 387/27 )
Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen , 15 Cote d'Eich,
Det      Danske        Stålvalseværk     A/S,    established    in
Frederiksværk ( Denmark ), represented by Jonathan Alex                                 (Language of the case: German)
Lawrence, Solicitor, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernst Arendt, 8— 10 Rue
Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of the European                            In Case T-244/94 : Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl,
Communities ( Agents : Nicholas Khan and Ben Smulders ),                established in Düsseldorf ( Germany ), Thyssen Stahl AG,
supported by Council of the European Union ( Agents :                   established in Duisburg ( Germany ), Preussag Stahl AG,
Rüdiger Bandilla and John Carbery ), Italian Republic                   established in Salzgitter ( Germany ), Hoogovens Groep BV,
( Agents: Umberto Leanza and Pier Giorgio Ferri ),                      established in Ijmuiden ( Netherlands ), represented by
Kingdom of Spain ( Agents : initially Alberto Navarro                   Jochim Sedemund and Frank Montag, Rechtsanwälte,
Gonzalez and Gloria Calvo Diaz, and then Luis Perez de                  Cologne, and, as regards Hoogovens Groep BV, by Eric
Ayala Beccerril ) and Ilva Laminati Piani SpA, established              Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
in Rome, represented by Aurelio Pappalardo, of the                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
Trapani Bar, and Massimo Merola , of the Rome Bar, with                 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of the European
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 Communities ( Agents: Bernd Langeheine and Ben
Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert I — application for the                     Smulders ), supported by Council of the European Union
annulment      of Commission         Decision   94/258/ECSC     of      ( Agents : Rüdiger Bandilla and Stephan Marquardt ), Italian
12 April 1994 concerning aid to be granted by Spain to                  Republic ( Agents : Umberto Leanza and Pier Giorgio
the public integrated steel company Corporación de la                   Ferri ), and Ilva Laminati Piani SpA, established in Rome,
Siderurgia Integral ( CSI ) and Commission Decision 94/                 represented by Aurelio Pappalardo, of the Trapani Bar,
259/ECSC of 12 April 1994 concerning aid to be granted                  and Massimo Merola , of the Rome Bar, with an address
by Italy to the public steel sector ( Ilva group ) ( OJ L 112,          for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain
3 . 5 . 1994, pp . 58 and 64 respectively ) — the Court of              Lorang, 51 Rue Albert I — application for the annulment
First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended Composition ),                 of Commission Decision 94/259/ECSC of 12 April 1994
composed of: A. Saggio, President, A. Kalogeropoulos, V.                concerning aid to be granted by Italy to the public steel
 ---pagebreak--- 20 . 12 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 387/ 17
sector (Ilva group ) ( OJ 1994 L 112, p. 64 ) — the Court of               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended Composition ),                                          of 5 November 1997
composed of: A. Saggio, President, A. Kalogeropoulos, V.
Tiili, A. Potocki and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H.                      in Case T- 149/95 : Etablissements J. Richard Ducros v.
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 October                              Commission of the European Communities (')
1997, in which it:
                                                                         (State aid — Restructuring aid — Commission decision —
                                                                                Annulment — Admissibility)
1 . dismisses the application;                                                                        ( 97/C 387/29 )
2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs of the defendant                              (Language of the case: French)
     and of the intervener Ilva Laminati Piani SpA;
                                                                         In Case T-149/95 : Etablissements J. Richard Ducros,
                                                                         established in Paris, represented by Philippe Genin, of the
3 . orders the Council and the Italian Republic to bear                  Lyons Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     their own costs.
                                                                         the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v.
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, ( Agents :
(>) OJ C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .                                           initially Jean-Paul Keppenne, then Xavier Lewis )
                                                                         supported by CMF S.p.A. and CMF Sud S.p.A. ,
                                                                         established in Pignatero Maggiore, Italy, represented by
                                                                         Mario Siragusa , of the Rome Bar, and Giuseppe
                                                                         Scassellati-Sforzolini , of the Bologna Bar, with an address
                                                                         for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs
                                                                         Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill —
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Application for annulment of the decision reproduced in
                         of 5 November 1997                              Commission Notice 95/C 120/03 pursuant to Article 93 ( 2 )
                                                                         of the EC Treaty to other Member States and other parties
in Case T-26/89 ( 125 ): Henri de Compte v. European                     concerned regarding aid which Italy granted to CMF Sud
                              Parliament (')                             S.p.A. and CMF S.p.A. [ State aid C 6/92 ( ex NN 149/91 )]
                                                                         ( OJ C 120, 16 . 5 . 1995 , p. 4 ) — the Court of
    (Officials — Application for revision — Admissibility)               First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended Composition ),
                              ( 97/C 387/28 )                            composed of: A. Saggio, President, C. P. Briët, A.
                                                                         Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;
                                                                         B. Pastor, Principal Administrator for the Registrar; has
                   (Language of the case: French)                        given a judgment on 5 November 1997, in which it :
In Case T-26/89 ( 125 ): Henri de Compte, a former official               1 . dismisses the application;
of the European Parliament, represented initially by
Francesco Pasetti Bombardella, of the Venice Bar, and                    2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those
subsequently by Henri Ferretti, of the Thionville Bar, with                   of the interveners.
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Guy Harles, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. European
                                                                         (') OJ C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
Parliament ( Agents : Francois Vainker and Evelyn
Waldherr) — application for revision of the judgment of
the Court of First Instance of 17 October 1991 in Case
T-26/89 de Compte v. European Parliament [ 1991 ] ECR
11-781 — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
composed of: A. Saggio, President, B. Vesterdorf and R. M.
Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
judgment on 5 November 1997, the operative part of
which is as follows :                                                                               ( First Chamber)
                                                                                of 5 November 1997
 1 . the application for revision is dismissed as being                  in Case T-12/97: Anna Barnett v. Commission of the
      inadmissible;                                                                          European Communities (')
                                                                              (Officials — Article 31 (2) of the Staff Regulations)
 2 . the applicant seeking revision is ordered to pay the                                              ( 97/C 387/30 )
      costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 (') OJ C 89 , 6 . 4 . 1988 .
                                                                          In Case T-12/97: Anna Barnett, official of the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,


title: Case T-31/08: Action brought on 23 January 2008 — Quantum v OHIM — Quantum Corporation (Quantum CORPORATION)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/31

         Action brought on 23 January 2008 — Quantum v OHIM — Quantum Corporation (Quantum CORPORATION)
   (Case T-31/08)
   (2008/C 92/65)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Quantum Corp. (San Jose, United States) (represented by: J. Barry, Sollicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Quantum Corporation Ltd (Lefkosia, Cyprus)
   Form of order sought

               —

               The decision of the First Board of Appeal of 17 October 2007 in Case R 1271/2006-1 be annulled;

               —

               appeal number R 1271/2006-1 be allowed;

               —

               opposition number B 936 288 be permitted to stand and proceedings to continue;

               —

               OHIM pay Quantum's costs both in these proceedings and in the appeal proceedings before the OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Quantum Corporation Limited

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative Community trade mark composed of the sign ‘Q’ containing word elements ‘QUANTUM CORPORATION’ for goods and services in classes 35, 36 and 42 — Application No 3 773 355

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

      Mark or sign cited: The national and Community word marks ‘QUANTUM’ for goods and services in class 9 and the Community figurative mark ‘Q’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Declared the opposition inadmissible

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant claims that the contested decision is based on incorrect facts as it fails to take into account the existence and nature of the opposition guidelines. The applicant further submits that the contested decision breached its legitimate expectation that the practice outlined in the opposition guidelines would be factually correct, since other potential opponents could also have relied on them. Further, the applicant contends that it had a legitimate expectation that the guidelines would be followed and that it would receive a ‘standard letter 208’ requiring it to file a translation of its writ in order to comply with the formal requirements. Finally, the applicant claims that OHIM must incur liability pursuant to Article 114 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 in respect of its failure to comply with its obligations to provide up-to-date and accurate guidelines.


title: Case C-406/11 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2012 — Atlas Transport GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Atlas Air Inc. (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Admissibility before the Board of Appeal — Failure to file a statement setting out the grounds of appeal — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 59 — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 49(1) — Stay of proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 20(7)(c) — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/5

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2012 — Atlas Transport GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Atlas Air Inc.
   (Case C-406/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Admissibility before the Board of Appeal - Failure to file a statement setting out the grounds of appeal - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 59 - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 49(1) - Stay of proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 20(7)(c) - Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)
   2012/C 235/08
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Atlas Transport GmbH (represented by: K. Schmidt-Hern and U. Hildebrandt, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Atlas Air Inc. (represented by: R. Dissman, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) in Case T-145/08 Atlas Transport GmbH v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 January 2008 (Case R 1023/2007-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between ATLAS Air Inc. and Atlas Transport GmbH — Interpretation of Article 59 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) and of Rule 20(7)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Regulation No 40/94 (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1) — Circumstances justifying the stay in the cancellation proceedings — Application for annulment of the mark on which the opposition is founded pending before the national court

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Atlas Transport GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.


title: Case C-312/99: Action brought on 16 August 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
16.10.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 299/17
     class of ‘young persons’ comprising the ‘weaker segment’            Action brought on 16 August 1999 by the Commission
     of the employment market. Whilst the decision quotes                of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
     statistics and the observations of the Italian authorities
     which show that, given the specific characteristics of
     unemployment among young persons in Italy, and particu-
     larly in Southern Italy, that class includes persons in the                                 (Case C-312/99)
     age group up to 32 years, the Commission reached a
     different conclusion, sanctioning the extension of the class
     of ‘young persons’ only to those aged under 25, or 29 in
     the case of graduates.                                                                      (1999/C 299/19)
2. The decision appears to be invalidated by factors which are
     self-evident: unlawfulness, misuse of power and deficiency          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
     (inadequacy) of the statement of reasons as regards the             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 August
     ‘quantification’ of the aid considered permissible.                 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Antonio Aresu, of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                         Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                         of Carlos Goméz de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Rue Alcide de
3. The decision appears to be open to challenge on the                   Gasperi.
     ground of the deficiency (illogicality and inadequacy) of
     the statement of reasons in relation to the ‘quantification’
     of the aid not considered permissible. The same irregulari-
     ties are to be found in relation to the measures under              The applicant claims that the Court should:
     Article 15 of Law 196/97, concerning which the Com-
     mission observes that the conversion of fixed term CFLs
     (Contratti di Formazione e Lavoro or Training and Employ-
     ment Contracts) into contracts of indefinite duration does          1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     not create additional jobs, since the jobs themselves already           and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     existed, even though they were not permanent.                           Commission Directive 97/59/EC of 7 October 1997 (1)
                                                                             and Commission Directive 97/65/EC of 26 November
                                                                             1997 (2) adapting, for the third time, to technical progress
                                                                             Council Directive 90/679/EEC on the protection of work-
4. The compatibility of the measure with Community legis-                    ers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at
     lation — under which aid ‘to promote the economic                       work (3), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
     development of areas where the standard of living is                    gations under those directives;
     abnormally low or where there is serious underemploy-
     ment’ may be considered to be compatible within the
     meaning of Article 92(3)(a) of the EC Treaty (now Article
     87(3)(a) EC) — is not assessed in depth, with the result            2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the action.
     that the said provision has been infringed and wrongly
     applied and the statement of reasons is defective (inad-
     equate and inconsistent).
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
5. Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now Article 87 EC) has been
     infringed, or in any event the statement of reasons is
     clearly defective (inadequate) in that no account is taken of
     the effect of the aid considered incompatible upon trade            Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC), under
     within the Community or on competition.                             which a directive is binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                         upon each Member State to which it is addressed, imposes an
                                                                         obligation upon the Member States to comply with the
6. As to the operative part of the contested decision which              time-limits for implementation laid down in the directives.
     concerns the recovery of the aid deemed incompatible, the           Those time-limits expired on 31 March 1998 and 30 June
     statement of reasons is defective (inadequate) as regards           1998 respectively without the Italian Republic having adopted
     the necessity or at least the appropriateness of effecting          the necessary legislation to comply with the directives referred
     recovery.                                                           to in the form of order sought by the Commission.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 282 of 15.10.1997, p. 33.
(1) Concerning the scheme for the grant by Italy of aid for measures     (2) OJ L 335 of 6.12.1997, p. 17.
    to promote employment.                                               (3) OJ L 374 of 31.12.1990, p. 1.


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/62

         Removal from the Register of Case T-54/97 (1)

   (2005/C 217/124)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-54/97, H.J. Leemkuil v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.


title: Case C-59/01: Action brought on 12 February 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 134/4                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         5.5.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Special Com-
nanzhof, by order of that court of 14 December 2000                        missioners (United Kingdom), by order of 6 February
in the case of Christoph-Dornier-Stiftung für Klinische                    2001, in the case of Océ van der Grinten NV against
           Psychologie against Finanzamt Giessen                                           Inland Revenue Commissioners
                          (Case C-45/01)                                                             (Case C-58/01)
                         (2001/C 134/06)                                                            (2001/C 134/07)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                       European Communities by an order of the Special Com-
(Federal Finance Court) of 14 December 2000, received at the               missioners (United Kingdom) of 6 February 2001, which was
Court Registry on 2 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in             received at the Court Registry on 12 February 2001, for a
the case of Christoph-Dornier-Stiftung für Klinische Psycholog-            preliminary ruling in the case of Océ van der Grinten NV
ie against Finanzamt Giessen on the following questions:                   against Inland Revenue Commissioners, on the following
                                                                           questions:
1.   Does psychotherapeutic treatment, given in an out-
     patient facility provided by a foundation (charitable                 1.    In the circumstances set out in the Order for reference, is
     establishment) employing qualified psychologists who                        the 5 % charge specified in sub-paragraph (a)(ii) of
     are licensed under the Medical Practitioners Law (Heil-                     Article 10.3 of the UK/Netherlands Double Taxation
     praktikergesetz) but who are not registered as doctors,                     Convention 1980 (‘the 5 % charge’) a withholding tax on
     qualify as ‘closely related activities’ to hospital and medical             profits which a subsidiary distributes to its parent com-
     care within the meaning of Article 13A(1)(b) of Directive                   pany within article 5.1 of Council Directive
     77/388/EEC (1)?                                                             90/435/EEC (1) of 23 July 1990 (‘the Directive’)?
2.   In order for there to be an ‘other duly recognized                    2.    If the 5 % charge is such a withholding tax is its effect
     establishment of a similar nature’ within the meaning of                    preserved as a consequence of Article 7.2 of the Directive?
     Article 13A(1)(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC, must there be
     a formal recognition procedure or can recognition also
                                                                           3.    If the 5% charge is preserved only as a consequence of
     derive from other regulations (e.g. regulations concerning
                                                                                article 7.2 of the Directive, is Article 7.2 invalid for want
     the assumption of costs by authorities responsible for the
                                                                                of reasoning or failure to consult the ESC and the
     provision of social security) which apply equally to
                                                                                European Parliament, with the result that it does not have
     hospitals, centres for medical treatment and other estab-
                                                                                the effect of preserving the right of the United Kingdom
     lishments?
                                                                                to charge the 5 % tax?
     Is an exemption from tax unavailable to the extent that
     the authorities responsible for providing social security
     do not reimburse, or only partially reimburse, patients               (1) on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of
                                                                               parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ
     for the costs of psychotherapeutic treatment given by the                 L 225, 20.08.1990, p. 6).
     aforementioned employees of the plaintiff?
3.   Is the psychotherapeutic treatment provided by the
     plaintiff exempt from tax on the basis of the neutrality of
     value added tax, because the psychotherapists it employs
     could have provided the same treatment on a tax-exempt
     basis under Article 13A(1)(c) of Directive 77/388/EEC if
     they had provided it themselves as self-employed taxable
     persons?
                                                                           Action brought on 12 February 2001 by the Commission
4.   Is the plaintiff entitled to rely on the tax exemption of             of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
     its transactions involving psychotherapeutic treatment
     under Article 13A(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 77/388/EEC?                                        (Case C-59/01)
     Pending the decision of the Court of Justice of the
     European Communities, the appeal proceedings are
     stayed.                                                                                (2001/C 134/08)
                                                                           An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.                                                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 February
                                                                           2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Christina Tufvesson and Antonio Aresu, acting
                                                                           as Agents.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.5.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 134/5
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               the freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide
                                                                          services actually have a duty to account to the competent
—     declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its          authorities of the Member State of origin only.
      obligations under Council Directive 92/49/EEC (1) of
      18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance          Lastly, under the last sentence of Article 2(5)(d) of Decree
      other than life assurance and amending Directives                   No 70, insurance undertakings operating in Italy, including
      73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance                 those that conduct their business under the freedom of
      Directive) in that it has set up and kept in force a system         establishment or the freedom to provide services, are required
      of premium controls applicable to all contracts for the             to contribute to the funding and management costs of the data
      insurance of civil liability arising from the use of motor          bank set up under Decree No 70. A requirement such as that
      vehicles in relation to risks situated within Italian territory,    is linked to the obligation to provide ISVAP with information
      without distinguishing between insurance companies                  laid down by Article 2 of Decree No 70, which is itself
      having their head office in Italy and those conducting              inconsistent with Article 44 of the directive. Consequently, the
      their business in Italy through branch offices or under the         obligation to contribute to the funding of the data bank
      freedom to provide services, in breach of:                          imposed upon undertakings operating under the freedom of
                                                                          establishment or the freedom to provide services within Italian
      (a)   the principle of the freedom to set premiums and              territory is clearly also inconsistent with Community law.
            the abolition of prior or systematic controls over
            premiums and contracts, as dealt with in Articles 6,
            29 and 39 of the said directive;
                                                                          (1) OJ 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1.
      (b) the provisions of Article 44 of the said directive,
            which concern arrangements for gathering infor-
            mation on the amount of the premiums, claims and
            commission, the frequency and average cost of
            claims, and the exchange of information between
            the regulatory authorities of the Member State of
            origin and those of the host Member State;
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
      proceedings.
                                                                          Appeal brought on 12 February 2001 (facsimile of 9 Feb-
                                                                          ruary 2001) by Anna Maria Campogrande against the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           judgment delivered on 7 December 2000 by the Fourth
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
The Commission submits that:                                              Communities in Case T-136/98 between A.M. Campo-
                                                                            grande and Commission of the European Communities
Freezing the premiums and certain other components of
the contractual offer, and requiring all civil liability motor                                     (Case C-62/01 P)
insurance undertakings to offer contracts with premiums
calculated by reference to a no-claims bonus, and with full
indemnity, for between ITL 500 000 and ITL 1 000 000, are                                          (2001/C 134/09)
measures which should be regarded as inconsistent with the
principle of freedom to set premiums enshrined by Articles 6,
29 and 39 of Directive 92/49/EEC. Insurers who provide                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 December
contracts covering risks situated within Italian territory do not         2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
enjoy the right to determine freely these components of their             of the European Communities in Case T-136/98 between
contractual offer. There appears to be no justification for this          A.M. Campogrande and Commission of the European Com-
restriction of the freedom to set premiums.                               munities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities on 12 February 2001 (facsimile of
                                                                          9 February 2001) by A.M. Campogrande, represented by Anne
Article 2(5)(a) and (d) of Decree No 70 of 28 March 2000,
                                                                          Krywin, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
which confers upon ISVAP (the Istituto per la vigilanza sulle
assicurazioni private e di interesse collective, the Private and
Collective Interest Insurance Supervisory Authority) authority
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
to supervise insurance undertakings offering ‘compulsory
motor insurance’ in connection with the matters set out in
Article 2(2), (3) and (4), is incompatible with the provisions of
                                                                          Declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;
Article 44 of the directive concerning the gathering of
information on the amount of the premiums, claims and
commissions, the frequency and average cost of claims,                    Accordingly,
and the exchange of information between the supervisory
authorities of the Member State of origin and those of the
host Member State. As regards the communication of such                   —     set aside the judgment in Case T-136/98 of the Court of
information, insurance undertakings operating in Italy under                    First Instance of 5 December 2000 in so far as it finds:


title: Case T-427/11: Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2013 — Laboratoire Bioderma v OHIM — Cabinet Continental (BIODERMA) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark BIODERMA — No infringement of the rights of the defence — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2013 — Laboratoire Bioderma v OHIM — Cabinet Continental (BIODERMA)
   (Case T-427/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark BIODERMA - No infringement of the rights of the defence - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2013/C 108/62
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratoire Bioderma (Lyon, France) (represented by: A. Teston, 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: Cabinet Continental (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-C. Brun, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 February 2011 (Case R 861/2009-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Cabinet Continental and Laboratoire Bioderma

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 February 2011 (Case R 861/2009-1) in so far as concerns dietetic substances adapted for medical use, in Class 5;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Laboratoire Bioderma to bear its own costs and half of those incurred by OHIM and Cabinet Continental;

               4.

               Orders OHIM and Cabinet Continental to bear half of their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Case T-208/12: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — Think Schuhwerk v OHIM (Red shoelace end caps) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark — Red shoelace end caps — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Procedure by default)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — Think Schuhwerk v OHIM (Red shoelace end caps)
   (Case T-208/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark - Red shoelace end caps - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Procedure by default)
   2013/C 252/49
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Think Schuhwerk GmbH (Kopfing, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2012 (Case R 1552/2011-1), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a sign consisting of red shoelace end caps

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Think Schuhwerk GmbH to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.


title: Case C-549/10 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 2010 by Tomra Systems ASA, Tomra Europe AS, Tomra Systems GmbH, Tomra Systems BV, Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH, Tomra Systems AB, Tomra Butikksystemer AS against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T-155/06: Tomra Systems ASA, Tomra Europe AS, Tomra Systems GmbH, Tomra Systems BV, Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH, Tomra Systems AB, Tomra Butikksystemer AS v European Commission

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/18

         Appeal brought on 22 November 2010 by Tomra Systems ASA, Tomra Europe AS, Tomra Systems GmbH, Tomra Systems BV, Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH, Tomra Systems AB, Tomra Butikksystemer AS against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T-155/06: Tomra Systems ASA, Tomra Europe AS, Tomra Systems GmbH, Tomra Systems BV, Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH, Tomra Systems AB, Tomra Butikksystemer AS v European Commission
   (Case C-549/10 P)
   2011/C 63/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Tomra Systems ASA, Tomra Europe AS, Tomra Systems GmbH, Tomra Systems BV, Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH, Tomra Systems AB, Tomra Butikksystemer AS (represented by: O. W. Brouwer, advocaat, A.J. Ryan, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court, as requested in this appeal;

               —

               Give final judgment and annul the decision or in any event reduce the fine, or, in the alternative, in case the Court of Justice does not itself decide the case, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice; and

               —

               If the costs are not reserved, order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal is directed against the judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 in Case T-155/06 Tomra Systems ASA, Tomra Europe AS, Tomra Systems GmbH, Tomra Systems BV, Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH, Tomra Systems AB, Tomra Butikksystemer AS v. European Commission (the Judgment), dismissing the application brought by the Appellants against the decision of the European Commission declaring that the Appellants’ conduct was capable of foreclosing the reverse vending machine market.
   The Appellants submit that the Court of Justice of the European Union should set aside the Judgment, as the General Court committed errors of law and procedure in finding that the Appellants’ conduct was capable of foreclosing the reverse vending machine market. In this regard, the Appellants have forwarded the following pleas:

               (i)

               error of law in the review applied by the General Court when assessing the European Commission's finding of an anti-competitive intent to foreclose the market: by merely requiring that the European Commission should not conceal documents, the General Court implicitly denied that it needs to carry out a comprehensive review of the Decision of the European Commission applying Article 82 EC Treaty (now Article 102 TFEU) and did also not fulfil the requirements of a marginal review to establish that the evidence relied on by the European Commission is accurate, reliable, consistent, complete and capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it;

               (ii)

               error of law and failure to provide sufficient and adequate reasoning with regard to the portion of total demand the agreements had to cover to be abusive: the Judgment merely uses undefined and unsubstantiated terms to describe the share of demand foreclosed, whereas it should have required a clear demonstration that foreclosure of a certain level of demand was abusive and provided sufficient and adequate reasoning in that regard:

               (iii)

               procedural error and error of law in the examination of retroactive rebates: the General Court misread and consequently failed to correctly take into consideration the Appellants’ arguments on retroactive rebates. The General Court furthermore erred in law by not requiring the European Commission to establish that the retroactive rebates used by the Appellants led to pricing below cost;

               (iv)

               error of law and failure to provide adequate reasoning when determining whether agreements in which the Appellants are named as preferred, main or primary supplier can be qualified as exclusive, by failing to consider and establish whether all the agreements at issue contained incentives to source exclusively from the Appellants, after having rejected the Appellants’ argument that it should take into account in its assessment whether the agreements were binding exclusivity agreements under national law; and

               (v)

               error of law in the review of the fine relating to the interpretation and application of the principle of equal treatment: the General Court failed to properly apply the principle of equal treatment when not considering whether the general level of fines had increased in deciding that the Appellants’ fine was not discriminatory.


title: Case C-499/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas lodged on 22 September 2015 — W. and V. v X.

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas lodged on 22 September 2015 — W. and V. v X.
   (Case C-499/15)
   (2015/C 414/21)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: W. and V.

      Defendant: X.

      Question referred

   On the basis of Articles 8 to 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (1) of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, which Member State — that is to say, the Republic of Lithuania or the Kingdom of the Netherlands — has jurisdiction to deal with the case concerning the changes to the place of residence, to the child maintenance amount and to the applicable contact arrangements in respect of the minor child, V., who is habitually resident in the Kingdom of the Netherlands?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.