title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello di Ancona, Sezione Civile, by order of that court of 19 October 1994 in the case of Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Foods Import srl (Case C-38/95)

text:
 13 . 5 . 95         IEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 119/3
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello di
court against Mostafa Saddik on the interpretation of                 Ancona, Sezione Civile, by order of that court of 19 October
Articles 3 , 9, 30, 37, 85 , 86, 87, 88 and 90 of the EC Treaty       1994 in the case of Amministrazione delle Finanze dello
— the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,                                         Stato v. Foods Import srl
President, F. A. Schockweiler, P.J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann                                      (Case C-38/95 )
and P. Jann (Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini,
C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray,                                         ( 95/C 119/06 )
D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur), G. Hirsch
and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
23 March 1995 in which it ordered :
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Civil Section of
                                                                      the Corte di Appello ( Court of Appeal ), Ancona, of
                                                                      19 October 1994, which was received at the Court Registry
the reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the               on 16 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Pretura Circondariale, Rome by order of 24 November                   Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Foods Import
1993 is inadmissible.                                                 srl on the following questions :
(!) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                      1 . Is the list given in Council Regulation ( EEC ) No
                                                                            3796/81 of 29 December 1981 ( l ) ( and repeated in
                                                                            Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3333/83 of 4 November
                                                                            1983 ( 2 ), Annex VI to which reproduces Chapter 3 of
                                                                            the Common Customs Tariff in which cod appears
                                                                            under heading No 03.02 A.I and fillets of cod under
                                                                            heading No 03.02 A.II, supplemented by the mention
                                                                             'Gadus morrhua, Boreogadus saida, Gadus ogac ',
                                                                            exhaustive or illustrative and, accordingly, is the dried
                                                                            cod scientifically classified as 'Molva ' covered by that
Appeal brought by Transacciones Maritimas SA (Tramasa),                     list ?
Makupesca SA and Recursos Marinos SA against the order
made by the President of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 January 1995 in Joined Cases
T-231/94 R, T-232/94 R and T-234/94 R between                         2. If the Court holds that list to be exhaustive, does
Transacciones Maritimas SA (Tramasa ), Makupesca SA                         Article 20 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3796/81 of
and Recursos Marinos SA and Commission of the European                      29 December 1981 , suspending certain Common
                            Communities                                     Customs Tariff duties, apply only to the three subspecies
                        ( Case C-12/95 P)                                   of cod referred to in Question 1 ('Gadus morrhua,
                                                                            Boreogadus saida, Gadus ogac ') to the exclusion of
                           ( 95/C 119/05 )
                                                                            other subspecies such as 'Molva '}
An appeal against the order made by the President of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                3 . In any event, must Article 5 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation
16 January 1995 in Joined Cases T-231/94 R, T-232/94 R                      ( EEC ) No 1697/79 (3 ) of 24 July 1979 , giving debtors
and T-234/94 R between Transacciones Maritimas SA                           the right (see the Court's judgment in Case 314/85
(Tramasa ), Makupesca SA and Recursos Marinos SA and                        Foto-Frost v. Hauptzollamt Liibeck-Ost [ 1987]
Commission of the European Communities was brought                          ECR 4199 ) to benefit from the fact that the competent
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities by                  authorities may refrain from taking action for the
Transacciones Maritimas SA (Tramasa ), Makupesca SA and                     post-clearance recovery of duties, be applied also in the
Recursos Marinos SA, represented by Santiago Martinez                       present case in which the customs authorities failed to
Lage, Rafael Allendesalazar Corcho and Javier Vfas Alonso,                  collect the relevant duties on account of an error, having
of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in                           regard also to the conduct of the alleged debtor who had
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand                          observed all the provisions laid down by the rules in
Rue .                                                                       force as far as his customs declaration was concerned ?
By order of the President of the Court of Justice of the
European Communities of 7 March 1995, the appeal has                  f 1 ) OJ No L 379 , 31 . 12 . 1981 , p . 1 .
                                                                      (2 ) OJ No L 313 , 14 . 11 . 1983 , p . 1 .
been dismissed and the appellants have been ordered to pay            (3 ) OJ No L 197, 3 . 8 . 1979, p. 1 .       '
the costs in their entirety.


title: Case T-32/13 P: Appeal brought on 24 January 2013 by Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 November 2012 in Case F-120/11 da Silva Tenreiro v Commission

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/22

         Appeal brought on 24 January 2013 by Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 November 2012 in Case F-120/11 da Silva Tenreiro v Commission
   (Case T-32/13 P)
   2013/C 86/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Order

                           —

                           that the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 14 November 2012 (Case F-120/11 da Silva Tenreiro v Commission) dismissing the action brought by the applicant is annulled;

               —

               giving judgment itself,

               —

               order

                           —

                           that the decision of the European Commission rejecting the applicant’s application for the vacant post of Director of Directorate A ‘Civil Justice’ in Directorate General (DG) ‘Justice’ and the decision nominating Ms Y to that post are annulled;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs at both instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging distortion of the facts:

                           —

                           firstly, in that the CST considered that the term ‘background’ used in the vacancy notice in the contested procedure referred to experience and not to training. The appellant submits that it is apparent in particular from the vacancy notices published by the Commission that when professional experience is required, the term ‘experience’ is used rather than ‘background’;

                           —

                           secondly, in that the CST considered that the term ‘regulation’ did not refer to regulatory mechanisms but to the legislative process.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging errors of law, the CST having examined the indications of misuse of power in an isolated rather than global manner, without seeking to establish whether the indications taken together, given their number, made it possible to call into question the lawfulness of the decisions contested at first instance.
               In addition, the appellant argues that the CST disregarded, in the light of the inequality of arms of the parties, the right to a fair hearing by refusing to adopt measures of organisation of the procedure enabling the indications of misuse of power to be emphasised and evidence to be adduced of a factor which could have been demonstrated only by such a measure.


title: Case C-146/10: Order of the President of the Court of 11 November 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 11 November 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-146/10) (1)

   ()
   2011/C 30/54
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) of 26 March 1997 in Case T-119/96: X v. European Parliament (Officials - Action for annulment - Prior administrative complaint - Objection on admissibility)

text:
No C 199/24             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28 . 6 . 97
Langenhagen ( Germany ), — LTU Lufttransport Unterneh                 1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
men GmbH & Co KG, having its registered office in
Düsseldorf ( Germany ) and Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft                2.   The costs are reserved.
mbH, having its registered office in Langenhagen
( Germany ), in its own behalf, represented by Gerrit
Schohe and Philipp von Dietze, Rechtsanwälte in Ham
burg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Marc Baden, 24, rue Marie-Adelaide, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                             ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Anders Jessen, Paul Nemitz and Georg M. Berrisch ) —
                                                                                of 2 May 1997
application for the annulment of Decision C(95 ) 3319
final of the Commission of 29 November 1995 concerning                 in Case T-90/96: Automobiles Peugeot SA v. Commission
fiscal aid in the field of depreciation favouring German                             of the European Communities ( ] )
undertakings — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth                    (Competition — Action for annulment — Objection of
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of K.                                                  inadmissibility)
Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh, J. Azizi, J. D. Cooke and M.
Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                                             { 97/C 199/67)
 14 March 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 1 . There is no need to give a decision.
                                                                       In Case T-90/96 : Automobiles Peugeot SA, established in
1 . The Commission shall pay all the costs.                            Paris, represented by Xavier de Roux, of the Paris Bar,
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 (') OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .                                     Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe, v. Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities ( Agents: initially, Francisco
                                                                       Enrique Gonzalez Diaz and Guy Charrier and,
                                                                       subsequently, Guy Charrier alone ) — application for
                                                                       annulment of four letters from the Commission dated 3
                                                                        and 22 April 1996 purporting to reject requests by the
                 ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                 applicant that confidential treatment be accorded to
            OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             certain information supplied to the Commission in the
                         of 21 March 1997                              context of Article 11 of Regulation No 17 of the Council
                                                                        of 6 February 1962 : First Regulation implementing
 in Case T-79/96 R: CAMAR S.r.l . v. Commission of the                  Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty ( OJ, English Special
                     European Communities                               Edition 1956-1962, p. 87) — the Court of First Instance
  (Organization of the common market — Bananas —                        ( Second Chamber ), composed of C. W. Bellamy, President,
 Application for interim measures — Request for delivery                and A. Kalogeropoulos and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung,
                       of import certificates)                          Registrar, made an order on 2 May 1997, the operative
                                                                        part of which is as follows:
                             97/C 199/66 )
                                                                        1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
 In Case T-79/96 R: CAMAR S.r.l ., established in Florence,             2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
 represented by Wilma Viscadini Dona, Mariano Paolin
  and Simonetta Dona, of the Padua Bar, with an address                 O OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
  for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest
  Arendt, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt, supported by Italian
  Republic ( Agents: Umberto Leanza and Pier Giorgio
  Ferri ), against Commission of the European Communities
  (Agent: Eugenio de March ), supported by French Republic
  ( Agents : Frederic Pascal and Catherine de Salins ) —                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  application brought under Article 186 of the EC Treaty                                       (Third Chamber)
  requesting the President of the Court of First Instance to                                  of 26 March 1997
  order the Commission to deliver to Camar, in respect of
  1997, certificates for the importation of bananas from                       in Case T-l 19/96: X v. European Parliament (')
  third countries and non-traditional ACP countries, for a               (Officials — Action for annulment — Prior administrative
  quantity equal to the difference between the quantity of                         complaint — Objection on admissibility)
  Somalian bananas which it may import and that which it
  imported during 1988 , 1989 and 1990 and, in the                                                 ( 97/C 199/68 )
  alternative, for all other measures which it may consider
  appropriate to prevent Camar from suffering irreparable                               (Language of the case: French)
  harm before judgment is delivered in the main proceedings
  — the President of the Court of First Instance made an                 In Case T-l 19/96 : X, official of the European Parliament,
  order on 21 March 1997, the operative part of which is as              residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis,
  follows :                                                              Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,
 ---pagebreak--- 28 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 199/25
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Fidu                 Action brought on 9 April 1997 by C. A. S. Succhi di
ciaire Myson, Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, against European               Frutta S.p.a. against Commission of the European
Parliament (Agents : Manfred Peter and Norbert Lorenz )                                            Communities
— application for annulment of decisions of the European                                        ( Case T-106/97)
Parliament characterizing as irregular the absences of the
applicant from work from March to October 1995 — the                                              ( 97/C 199/70 )
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of B.
Vesterdorf, President, C. P. Briët and A. Potocki, Judges;                               (Language of the case: Italian)
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 26 March 1997, the
operative part of which is as follows:                                 An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
I. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                       Instance of the European Communities on 9 April 1997
                                                                       by C. A. S. Succhi di Frutta S.p.a ., represented by Alberto
                                                                       Miele, of the Padua Bar, Antonio Tizzano and Gian
2 . The parties are to bear their own costs.                           Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, and Carlo Scarpa, of
                                                                       the Venice Bar, with an address for service in Brussels at
                                                                       Mr Tizzano's Chambers, 36 Place du Grand Sablon.
(') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       — annul the Commission decision of 22 July 1996 (No
                                                                            C(96 ) 1916 ) concerning the supply of fruit juices and
                                                                           jams for the peoples of Armenia and Azerbaijan,
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        ( Second Chamber)                              — order the Commission to pay the costs of the
                           of 2 May 1997                                   proceedings .
in Case T-136/96: Automobiles Peugeot SA v. Commission                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
              of the European Communities (*)
(Competition — Action for annulment — Objection of                     The applicant is the same as that which, in Case T-191/
                           inadmissibility)                            96 ( ] ), contests the ex post facto amendment of one of the
                            ( 97/C 199/69
                                                                       essential points in the notice of tender relating to the
                                                                       supply of fruit juices and jams for the peoples of Armenia
                                                                       and Azerbaijan. It points out in this regard that, while the
               (Language of the case: French)                          amendment contested in Case T-191 /96 consisted in the
                                                                       possibility of withdrawing from intervention stocks fresh
                                                                       products other than those specified in the notice of tender,
In Case T-136/96 : Automobiles Peugeot SA, having its                  in particular peaches, that challenged in the present action
registered office in Paris, represented by Xavier de Roux,             is an amendment, adopted by way of the contested
of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in                       decision, which extends this possibility of substitution to
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 8 Rue                    nectarines .
Zithe , against Commission of the European Communities
( Agents: Giuliano Marenco and Guy Charrier ) —
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
application for the annulment of the Commission's                      those relied on in Case T-191 /96 .
decision of 19 July 19 96 allegedly rejecting requests by the
applicant for confidential treatment of certain information
provided to the Commission in the context of Article 11                (>) OJ No C 94, 22 . 3 . 1997, p . 15 .
of Council Regulation No 17: First Regulation
implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty ( OJ,
English Special Edition, 1959-62 ( I ), p. 87) — the Court
of First Instance ( Second Chamber), composed of C. W.
Bellamy, President, A. Kalogeropoulos and P. Lindh,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 2 May 1997,               Action brought on 11 April 1997 by Molkerei
the operative part of which is as follows:                             Großbraunshain GmbH and Bene Nahrungsmittel GmbH
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                                               ( Case T-109/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/71 )
2 . The applicants shall bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 1997


title: Case T-78/07: Action brought on 8 March 2007 — IXI Mobile v OHIM — Klein (IXI)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/54

         Action brought on 8 March 2007 — IXI Mobile v OHIM — Klein (IXI)
   (Case T-78/07)
   (2007/C 95/109)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: IXI Mobile, Inc (Redwood City, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jochen und Eckhard Klein GbR (Olching, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               The decision of the Second Board of Appeal dated 11 January 2007 in Case R 796/2006-2 dismissing the appeal shall be annulled;

               —

               the Office and the other party shall bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘IXI ’for goods in class 9 — application No 723 140

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Jochen und Eckhard Klein GbR

      Mark or sign cited: The Community word mark ‘ixi ’for goods in class 9

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: The opponent did not adduce evidence of similarity between the respective goods; the Board of Appeal took an unduly broad view of the scope of protection of the earlier mark and failed to properly analyse the relevant factors governing the assessment of similarity of the respective goods. Furthermore, the Board of Appeal took the reasons for the applicant to select its mark into consideration, which the applicant submits is an irrelevant consideration.


title: Case T-84/12: Order of the General Court of 4 July 2014  — Uspaskich v Parliament (Action for annulment and compensation — Privileges and immunities — Member of the European Parliament — Decision to waive immunity — Re-examination — Decision not to defend immunity — Inadmissibility — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/12

         Order of the General Court of 4 July 2014 — Uspaskich v Parliament
   (Case T-84/12) (1)

   ((Action for annulment and compensation - Privileges and immunities - Member of the European Parliament - Decision to waive immunity - Re-examination - Decision not to defend immunity - Inadmissibility - Manifest inadmissibility))
   2014/C 329/15
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Viktor Uspaskich (Kėdainiai, Lithuania) (represented by: A. Raišutis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz, M. Windisch and L. Mašalaitė-Chouteau, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and V. Balčiūnaitė, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Firstly, an application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 1 December 2011 not to defend the applicant’s parliamentary immunity and to reject his application for re-examination of the decision to waive immunity and, secondly, a claim for damages.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Viktor Uspaskich shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

               3.

               The Republic of Lithuania shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/33

         Removal from the register of Case C-459/01 (1)

   (2004/C 94/80)
   By order of 27 January 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-459/01: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.

      (1)  OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.


title: Case T-190/09: Action brought on 13 May 2009 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Performing Science (5 HTP)

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/17

         Action brought on 13 May 2009 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Performing Science (5 HTP)
   (Case T-190/09)
   2009/C 167/34
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Longevity Health Products, Inc (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Performing Science LLC

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Declare the appeal of Longevity Health Products, Inc admissible,

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 21 April 2009 and dismiss the application by Performing Science LLC that Community trade mark No 002846483 — ‘5 HTP’ be declared invalid, and

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘5 HTP’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 16 and 35 (Community trade mark No 2 846 483).

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Longevity Health Products, Inc.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Performing Science LLC.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for declaration of invalidity of the trade mark concerned partially granted.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1).

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


title: Case T-349/07: Action brought on 7 September 2007 — FMC Chemical and Others v Commission

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/62

         Action brought on 7 September 2007 — FMC Chemical and Others v Commission
   (Case T-349/07)
   (2007/C 269/112)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: FMC Chemical SPRL (Brussels, Belgium), Satec Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Elmshorn, Germany), Belchim Crop Protection NV (Londerzeel, Belgium), FMC Foret SA (Sant Cugat del Valles, Spain), F&N Agro Slovensko s.r.o. (Bratislava, Slovakia), F&N Agro Ceská republika s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic), F&N Agro Polska sp. z.o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) and FMC Corp. (Philadelphia, United States of America) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order the annulment of Decision 2007/415/EC;

               —

               declare the illegality and inapplicability vis-à-vis the first applicants and the review of its carbosulfan dossier of Article 20 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicants are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-326/07 Cheminova and Others v Commission.


title: Case C-444/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Monomeles Protodikio Athinon by order of that Court of 11 July 2002 in the case of Fixtures Marketing Limited against Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosphairou AE

text:
C 31/12                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          8.2.2003
       duces into the Community legal order, be construed as               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Monomeles
       meaning that the terms ‘biocidal products’ and ‘low-risk            Protodikio Athinon by order of that Court of 11 July
       biocidal product’ refer solely to products whose biocidal           2002 in the case of Fixtures Marketing Limited against
       function depends on active substances added to those                    Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosphairou AE
       products by chemical or biological means through pro-
       cesses expressly designed to add such substances in order                                    (Case C-444/02)
       to confer on those products a biocidal function?
                                                                                (2003/C 31/17)
2.     Must Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 98/8/EC, in the light of
       the general rules which that directive introduces into the
       Community legal order, be construed as meaning that the             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       term ‘basic substance’ refers to substances which are not           European Communities by order of the Monomeles Protodikio
       added to a product in order to enable it to perform an              Athinon (Single-Judge Court of First Instance, Athens) of
       intended biocidal function but such a biocidal function is          11 July 2002, received at the Court Registry on 9 December
       performed in addition to the function normally perfor-              2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fixtures Marketing
       med by that product during its use (as an example: liquid           Limited against Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosphai-
       for a dishwasher which, by virtue of the addition of a              rou AE (Football-match-results-forecasting Undertaking) on
       substance designed to improve its detergent function,               the interpretation of Article 7 of Directive 96/9/EC and the sui
       may also have a bactericidal function)?                             generis right thereunder in connection with the following
                                                                           issues:
3.     May a piece of red cedar wood, simply by virtue of the              1.    the concept of databases and the scope of Directive 96/
       fact that it is marketed as being ‘anti-moth’, be classifiable            9/EC ( 1) and in particular Article 7 thereof (sui generis
       as a ‘biocidal product’, as a ‘low-risk biocidal product’ or              right).
       as a ‘basic substance’ within the meaning of Directive 98/
       8/EC, bearing in mind that: (a) the wood in question has            2.    Further to determination of the scope of the directive,
       in no way been treated chemically or biologically; (b) the                whether the lists of football fixtures enjoy protection as
       substance on which the effects attributed to the wood                     databases over which there is a sui generis right in favour
       may depend is naturally present in the product; (c) the                   of the maker and with what consequences.
       product is substantially marketed as found in its natural
       state?                                                              3.    How exactly the database right is infringed and whether
                                                                                it is protected in regard to rearrangement of the contents
                                                                                of the database.
4.     Must Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 98/8/EC be construed as
       meaning that it is only if a ‘basic substance’ is included
       on the list referred to in Annex IB that that substance             (1 ) OJ L 77 of 27.3.1996, p. 20.
       may be exempted from the authorisation and registration
       provided for the marketing in the Member States of
       products covered by Article 2, with such inclusion on the
       list referred to in Annex IB thus acquiring constitutive
       effectiveness for all purposes?
                                                                           Appeal brought on 9 December 2002 by Glaverbel against
5.     Must Article 4 of Directive 98/8/EC, by reference to                the judgment delivered on 9 October 2002 by the Second
       Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, be construed as meaning that              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
       a product such as that described in Question 3, placed              Communities in case T-36/01 (1) between Glaverbel and
       lawfully on the market in a Member State without any                the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
       need for authorisation or registration in that Member                              (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM)
       State, may be made subject to authorisation or regis-
       tration in another Member State in which it is sub-                                         (Case C-445/02 P)
       sequently marketed by reason of the fact that the product
       in question is not included on the list referred to in
       Annex IB to Directive 98/8/EC?                                                                (2003/C 31/18)
                                                                           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 October 2002
( 1) Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council       by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
     of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products       European Communities in case T-36/01 between Glaverbel
     on the market (OJ L 123 of 24.04.1998, p. 1).                         and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
                                                                           (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM), was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 December
                                                                           2002 by Glaverbel, represented by Susanne Möbus, Attorney
                                                                           at Law, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-156/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2013 — Sweet Tec v OHIM (Shape of an oval) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of an oval — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2013 — Sweet Tec v OHIM (Shape of an oval)
   (Case T-156/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of an oval - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2)
   2014/C 39/30
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sweet Tec GmbH (Boizenburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Nägele, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2012 (Case R 542/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign in the shape of an oval as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               The action is rejected;

               2.

               Sweet Tec GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Case T-518/11: Action brought on 27 September 2011 — BTL Diffusion v OHIM — dm-drogerie markt (babyTOlove)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/23

         Action brought on 27 September 2011 — BTL Diffusion v OHIM — dm-drogerie markt (babyTOlove)
   (Case T-518/11)
   2011/C 355/42
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BTL Diffusion (Saint Cloud, France) (represented by: A. Berendes, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany)

      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 8 July 2011 in case R 883/2010-2 to the extend that it: (i) upheld the opposition and rejected the contested Community trade mark application for ‘surgical medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments, orthopaedic articles; suture materials’ in class 10 and ‘clothing, footwear headgear’ in class 25, and (ii) dismissed the applicant’s request to annul the contested decision on a point not raised in the appeal to the extent that it upheld the opposition for ‘games and playthings; gymnastic and porting articles not included in other classes’ in class 28; and

               —

               Confirm the said decision for ‘artificial limbs, eyes and teeth’ in class 10 and ‘decorations for Christmas trees’ in class 28.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘babyTOlove’, for goods in classes 10, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 7104219

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration No 935598 of the word mark ‘babylove’, for goods in classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30 and 32; International trade mark registration No 979365 of the word mark ‘Baby Love’, for goods in classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30 and 32

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the decision of the Opposition Division; upheld the opposition and rejected the contested Community trade mark application for part of the goods in class 10 and 25; dismissed the appeal for the remainder

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly assessed likelihood of confusion.


title: Case C-283/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2014  — CM Eurologistik GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/36

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2014 — CM Eurologistik GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg
   (Case C-283/14)
   2014/C 315/58
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CM Eurologistik GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

      Question referred

   Must Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 158/2013 of 18 February 2013 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) be regarded as valid?

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 49, p. 29.


title: Case C-446/01: Action brought on 20 November 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 31/6                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2.2.2002
Action brought on 20 November 2001 by the Com-                                 (Torreblanca/Malaga, San Lorenzo de Tormes/Avila, Pria-
mission of the European Communities against the                                ranza del Bierzo/León, Sa Roca/Ibiza and Campello/
                         Kingdom of Spain                                      Alicante) are illegal in the absence of any permit satisfying
                                                                               the requirements laid down in Article 9 of Directive
                           (Case C-446/01)                                     75/442/EEC. Moreover, as at 28 April 2000, the deadline
                                                                               under the reasoned opinion for compliance by the
                            (2002/C 31/11)                                     Kingdom of Spain, four of the five waste-disposal sites
                                                                               remained open, given that waste was continuing to be
                                                                               discharged or processed pending construction of other
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                      installations or site closure. As at that date, however, the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 No-                     waste-tip at Campello (Alicante) had not yet been sealed.
vember 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal                —    Infringement of Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC: none
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                       of the five waste-tips are equipped with leachate collection
Luxembourg at the Office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, also of                     and sealing systems, which undeniably produces contami-
the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                   nation of the soil and of any surface or ground water.
                                                                               The risk is exacerbated by the absence of a system for
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    selecting and separating the different types of waste.
                                                                               Furthermore, the illegal waste-processing plant in Torre-
1.    Declare that, by not adopting the measures necessary in                  blanca/Malaga is located near an urban area, thus
      order to secure, in regard to certain waste-disposal sites,              occasioning nuisances as a result of smells emitted and
      the application of Articles 4, 9 and in its case 13                      smoke produced by the spontaneous combustion of
      of Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as amended by                      waste.
      Directive 91/156/EEC (2), the Kingdom of Spain has failed
      to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
                                                                          —    Infringement of Article 13 of Directive 75/442/EEC:
2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                             the waste-disposal sites at Torreblanca/Malaga and San
                                                                               Lorenzo de Tormes/Avila are not subject to appropriate
                                                                               periodical inspections by the competent authorities.
Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Infringement of Article 9 of Directive 75/442/EEC: the              (1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.
      five waste disposal sites covered by this application               (2) OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32.


title: Case T-345/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 — Mote v Parliament (Privileges and immunities — Member of the European Parliament — Waiver of immunity)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 — Mote v Parliament
   (Case T-345/05) (1)

   (Privileges and immunities - Member of the European Parliament - Waiver of immunity)
   (2008/C 313/47)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ashley Neil Mote (represented by: J. Lofthouse and C. Hayes, Barristers, and M. Monan, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Krück, D. Moore and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for the annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 5 July 2005 waiving the applicant's parliamentary immunity.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ashley Neil Mote to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.


title: Case T-138/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2006 — É.R. and Others v Council and Commission (Common Agricultural Policy — Animal health — Bovine spongiform encephalopathy ( mad cow disease ) — New variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease — Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Liability of the Community in the absence of wrongful conduct on the part of its bodies — Loss — Causation — Procedural defects — Parallel proceedings before national courts — Limitation — Inadmissibility)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2006 — É.R. and Others v Council and Commission
   (Case T-138/03) (1)

   (Common Agricultural Policy - Animal health - Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (‘mad cow disease’) - New variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease - Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Liability of the Community in the absence of wrongful conduct on the part of its bodies - Loss - Causation - Procedural defects - Parallel proceedings before national courts - Limitation - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 331/69)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: É.R., O.O., J.R., A.R., B.P.R. (Vaulx-en-Velin, France); T.D., J.D., D.D., V.D. (Palaiseau, France); D.E., É.E. (Ozoir-la-Ferrière; France); C.R. (Vichy, France); H.R., M.S.R., I.R., B.R., M.R. (Pau, France); and C.S. (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Honnorat, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (initially represented by: M. Balta and F. Ruggeri Laderchi, and later by: M. Balta and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (initially represented by: D. Booss and G. Berscheid, and later by: G. Berscheid and T. van Rijn, Agents)
   Re:
   Actions for damages pursuant to Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a consequence of the infection and subsequent death of members of their families who suffered from a new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which was linked to the outbreak and spread in Europe of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, for which the Council and the Commission are responsible.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application as inadmissible in relation to É.R., O.O., J.R., A.R. and B.P.R.;

               2.

               Dismisses the application as unfounded as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the applicants to pay three-quarters of the costs and the Council and the Commission to pay one-quarter of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 158, 5.7.2003. This case was previously cited as U. and Others v Council and Commission.


title: Case C-227/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München by order of that court of 4 May 2005 in Daniel Halbritter v Freistaat Bayern

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München by order of that court of 4 May 2005 in Daniel Halbritter v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-227/05)
   (2005/C 182/57)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München (Germany) of 23 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 4 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Daniel Halbritter and Freistaat Bayern on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 1(2) in conjunction with Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State within its territory is precluded from refusing to recognise a right to drive under a driving licence issued by another Member State even where, in the territory of the first Member State, a measure withdrawing or cancelling a driving licence issued by that State has been taken against the holder of the driving licence, if the ban on obtaining a new driving licence in that Member State, with which that measure was coupled, had expired before the driving licence was issued by the other Member State and

                           (a)

                           where the law of the first Member State is based on the premiss that evidence of fitness to drive as a substantive condition for restoration of a driving licence must be adduced in the form of a medical-psychological report specifically governed by national legislation and ordered by the authorities (which has not yet been done)
                           and/or

                           (b)

                           where under national law there is an entitlement in the territory of the first Member State to be granted the right to make use of an EU driving licence issued after the expiry of the ban if the internal reasons for the withdrawal or for the ban no longer exist?

               2.

               Should Article 1(2) in conjunction with Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an application for a driving licence to be granted to the holder of a driving licence from another Member State being made by handing over the driving licence of that other Member State (so-called ‘reregistration’), a Member State, simply by virtue of the EU driving licence having been granted by that other Member State, is precluded from conducting a further examination of fitness — as stated by its internal law to be a condition for the grant of a licence and regulated therein — having regard to the circumstances in existence at the time that the EU driving licence was granted?

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1.


title: Case C-320/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht Lübeck by order of that court of 6 August 2001 in the case of Wiebke Busch against Klinikum Neustadt GmbH & Co Betriebs-KG

text:
C 303/10               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        27.10.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht                 the Commission of the European Communities was brought
Lübeck by order of that court of 6 August 2001 in the                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
case of Wiebke Busch against Klinikum Neustadt GmbH                      21 August 2001 (fax: 20.8.2001) by AGRANA Zucker und
                       & Co Betriebs-KG                                  Stärke Aktiengesellschaft, represented by Walter Barfuß and
                                                                         Hanno Wollmann, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs Schönherr Barfuß
                                                                         Torggler & Partner, of Tuchlauben 13, A-1014 Vienna, with
                         (Case C-320/01)
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                         Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, L-2010
                         (2001/C 303/16)                                 Luxembourg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   The appellant claims that the Court should:
European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht (Labour
Court) of 6 August 2001 which was received at the Court
                                                                         (1) set aside the whole of the contested judgment (1) and
Registry on 20 August 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Wiebke Busch against Klinikum Neustadt GmbH & Co.                       annul Commission Decision 1999/342/EC of 30 Septem-
                                                                                ber 1998 concerning aid which Austria plans to grant
Betriebs-KG on the following questions:
                                                                                to Agrana Stärke GmbH to build and convert starch
                                                                                production facilities (OJ 1999 L 131, p. 61), and, if
1.    Does it constitute illegal discrimination on grounds of                   appropriate, refer the case, after setting aside the contested
      sex, within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Council                        judgment, back to the Court of First Instance;
      Directive 76/207/EEC (1), if a woman who, after she has
      started her parenting leave (Erziehungsurlaub) whishes to
      shorten that leave with the consent of her employer, is            (2) order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings
      under an obligation to inform the employer if she knows                   before the Court of First Instance and of the appeal
      she is pregnant again before the agreement to shorten her                 proceedings.
      leave is concluded, where she cannot fully assume
      the proposed work because from the very first day a
      prohibition of employment applies in respect of particular
      tasks?                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
2.    If the answer to Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
                                                                         The Court of First Instance failed in the contested judgment
      In the case described, does it constitute unlawful discrimi-
                                                                         to state which obligations are imposed on the European
      nation on the grounds of sex, within the meaning of the
                                                                         Commission by Declaration No 31 set out in the Final Act of
      said Directive, if the employer then has the right to
                                                                         the 1995 Act of Accession (Joint Declaration on the processing
      rescind his consent to the shortening of parenting leave
                                                                         industry in Austria and Finland). It is apparent simply from an
      because he was mistaken about the fact that the woman
                                                                         interpretation of the literal wording of Declaration No 31 that
      was pregnant?
                                                                         the respondent in the present case was obliged to apply
                                                                         Article 87(3)(c) EC not (as usual) in a narrow way but broadly
(1) OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40.
                                                                         (‘flexibly’). The respondent and the Court of First Instance
                                                                         failed to meet that requirement, inasmuch as they attributed to
                                                                         an aid measure recognised as being only small-scale an effect
                                                                         prejudicial to the Community. Had a flexible interpretation
                                                                         been applied to the rules of the Treaty relating to aid, the
                                                                         measure should have been approved.
Appeal brought on 21 August 2001 (fax: 20.8.2001) by                     In addition, the respondent and the Court of First Instance
AGRANA Zucker und Stärke Aktiengesellschaft against                      wrongly applied Declaration No 31, inasmuch as they declined
the judgment delivered on 7 June 2001 by the Fifth                       to include in their calculations, first, the advantage accruing to
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First                     the Community from the non-transitional accession of Austria
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-187/99                    and, second, the interest of Austria in the restructuring of
between AGRANA Zucker und Stärke Aktiengesellschaft                      its processing industry. It is apparent from a teleological
    and the Commission of the European Communities                       interpretation, of Declaration No 31 that the Commission is
                                                                         obliged, when assessing individual aid projects assisting the
                                                                         absorption of the Austrian processing industry into the internal
                        (Case C-321/01 P)                                market, to take those factors into account. By declaring that
                                                                         there was no obligation to weigh up the various interests
                         (2001/C 303/17)                                 involved, the Court of First Instance (like the Commission
                                                                         before it) has infringed Community law.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 June 2001 by
                                                                         (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999, p. 10.
the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-187/99
between AGRANA Zucker und Stärke Aktiengesellschaft and


title: Case C-347/15: Action brought on 9 July 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/26

         Action brought on 9 July 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-347/15)
   (2015/C 279/32)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls, J. Hottiaux and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, in so far as it did not oblige ÖBB Personenverkehr (Austrian Federal Railways) to publish the public service compensation and the costs and revenues for each public service contract, the Republic of Austria has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/34/EU (1) and under Article 6(1) read in conjunction with Rule 5 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (2);

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The defendant failed to comply with its obligations under Directive 2012/34/EU and Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
   The defendant has failed to ensure that the invoices corresponding to public funds for the provision of public transport services are separately broken down according to each contract and that their costs and revenues are evidenced and published separately. The defendant has thereby infringed the corresponding rules of EU law in the area of rail transport.

      (1)  Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).


title: Case T-404/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  6 October 2005  —  Fischer  v  Court of Justice  (Officials — Action for annulment — Invalidity — Half-time on medical grounds — Statement of reasons — Invalidity committee — Action for damages)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 October 2005 — Fischer v Court of Justice

   (Case T-404/03) (1)

   (Officials - Action for annulment - Invalidity - Half-time on medical grounds - Statement of reasons - Invalidity committee - Action for damages)
   (2005/C 296/47)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Pia Fischer (Konz-Roscheid, Germany) (represented by: C Marhuenda, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Court of Justice of the European Communities (represented by: M. Schauss, Agent)
   Subject-matter of the case
   Firstly, an application for annulment of the decisions of the appointing authority of 10 April and 6 June 2003 declaring that the applicant was not affected by complete and permanent invalidity making it impossible for her to carry out duties involved in a post in her career bracket and requesting her to return to work on a half-time basis on medical grounds for a total period of 13 weeks. Secondly, an application for the payment of 1 EUR as token damages for the non-material loss allegedly suffered.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed in its entirety.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 47, 21.2.2004


title: Case T-17/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — U4U and Others v Parliament and Council (Special and exceptional provisions applicable to officials serving in a third country — Career of officials with the grade of administrator — Amendment of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 — Irregularities during the procedure for adopting the measures — Failure to consult the Staff Regulations Committee and the trade unions)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — U4U and Others v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-17/14) (1)

   ((Special and exceptional provisions applicable to officials serving in a third country - Career of officials with the grade of administrator - Amendment of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 - Irregularities during the procedure for adopting the measures - Failure to consult the Staff Regulations Committee and the trade unions))
   (2016/C 392/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Union pour l’Unité (U4U) (Brussels, Belgium), Unité & Solidarité — Hors Union (USHU) (Brussels), Regroupement Syndical (RS) (St Josse ten Noode, Belgium) and Georges Vlandas (Brussels) (represented by: F. Krenc, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Troupiotis and E. Taneva, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented initially by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, and subsequently by M. Bauer, M. Veiga and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently by G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of Article 1(27), (61), (70) and (73)(k) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), in so far as those provisions amend Article 45 and annexes I, X and XIII of those regulations, annexed to Regulation No 31 (EEC)/11(EAEC) laying down the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 1962 45, p. 1385).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Union pour l’Unité (U4U), Unité & solidarité — Hors Union (USHU), Regroupement Syndical (RS) and Mr Georges Vlandas to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration Adjudicator, by order of the Adjudicator of 25 September 1998, in the case of Arben Kaba against Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-356/98)

text:
C 358/10              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   21.11.98
    majority of cases, select only a Belgian national                   considered (see paragraph 255 of the United Kingdom
    residing for a certain length of time in Belgium, thus              Immigration Rules, House of Commons Paper 395), as
    allowing those authorities to carry out the screening'             compared to a requirement of 12 months residence
    which they deem necessary, but not a person who has                 before such application can be made, as is applied to
    acted as a manager of a comparable undertaking in                   spouses of the United Kingdom nationals and spouses
    another Member State of the European Union. In                      of those present and settled in the United Kingdom
    those circumstances, the requirement of residence                   (paragraph 287 of the United Kingdom Immigration
    constitutes indirect discrimination which could only be             Rules, House of Commons Paper 395) constitute
    justified under Article 56 of the EC Treaty. The                    unlawful discrimination contrary to Article 7(2)
    Commission considers, however, that the restriction                 Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68?
    derives from administrative considerations which are
    not such as to justify it.
                                                                   (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October
                                                                       1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
                                                                       Community (OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2 [SE SER1 68(II)
Ð Restriction on freedom of movement for workers                       p. 475]).
    (Article 48 of the EC Treaty):
    The requirement of residence in Belgium prevents
    workers residing in other countries from being
    engaged by a security firm or a security systems firm,
    or being employed for the purposes of an internal
    security service in an undertaking in Belgium. In              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal,
    response to the argument alleging the need for control,        London, by order of that Court of 13 May 1998, in the
    the Commission reiterates the arguments which it put           case of The Queen against Secretary of State for the
    forward in connection with Article 52 of the EC                  Home Department, ex parte: Nana Yaa Konadu Yiadom
    Treaty.
                                                                                (Case C-357/98)
(1) OJ C 334, 9.12.1993, p. 3.                                                             (98/C 358/19)
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities by an order of the Court of
                                                                   Appeal, London, of 13 May 1998, which was received at
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration              the Court Registry on 1 October 1998, for a preliminary
Adjudicator, by order of the Adjudicator of 25 September           ruling in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State
1998, in the case of Arben Kaba against Secretary of State         for the Home Department, ex parte: Nana Yaa Konadu
                  for the Home Department                          Yiadom, in the following questions:
                       (Case C-356/98)
                        (98/C 358/18)                              1. Do both Article 8 and Article 9 of Council Directive
                                                                        64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination
                                                                        of special measures concerning the movement and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  residence of foreign nationals which are justified on
European Communities by an order of the Immigration                     grounds of public policy, public security or public
Adjudicator of 25 September 1998, which was received at                 health (OJ English Special Edition 1963Ð4, p. 117
the Court Registry on 1 October 1998, for a preliminary                 and OJ 56, 4.4.1964, p. 850.) apply to decisions
ruling in the case of Arben Kaba against Secretary of State             concerning entry into the territory of a Member State,
for the Home Department, on the following questions:                    or are decisions concerning entry covered solely by the
                                                                        provisions of Article 8?
1. Does the right to apply for indefinite leave to remain
    in the United Kingdom and the right to have that               2. If the answer to the first question is that Article 8, but
    application considered constitute a social advantage'              not Article 9, of Directive 64/221/EEC applies to
    within the meaning of Article 7(2), Regulation (EEC)                decisions concerning entry into the territory of a
    No 1612/68 (1)?                                                     Member State, are the requirements of Article 8
                                                                        satisfied by provisions of national law which grant to
                                                                        the national of a Member State who is refused entry to
2. Does the requirement imposed on the spouses of EC                    another Member State on grounds of public policy a
    nationals to have been resident in the United Kingdom               right of appeal to a court of law which may only be
    for four years before an application for indefinite leave           exercised once that person is no longer physically
    to remain in the United Kingdom may be made and                     present in the Member State concerned?


title: Case C-377/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 June 2014  — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Council Decision 2012/272/EU on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and the Republic of the Philippines — Choice of legal basis — Articles 79 TFEU, 91 TFEU, 100 TFEU, 191 TFEU and 209 TFEU — Readmission of third-country nationals — Transport — Environment — Development cooperation)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 June 2014 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-377/12) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Council Decision 2012/272/EU on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and the Republic of the Philippines - Choice of legal basis - Articles 79 TFEU, 91 TFEU, 100 TFEU, 191 TFEU and 209 TFEU - Readmission of third-country nationals - Transport - Environment - Development cooperation))
   2014/C 282/04
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt, G. Valero Jordana and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, D. Hadroušek and E. Ruffer, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, J. Möller and N. Graf Vitzthum, acting as Agents), Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and A. Carroll, Barrister), Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Khala and G. Papagianni, acting as Agents), Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by A. Robinson, and subsequently by E. Jenkinson and M. Holt, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Council Decision 2012/272/EU of 14 May 2012 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of the Philippines, of the other part, in so far as the Council of the European Union added thereto the legal bases relating to readmission of third-country nationals, transport and the environment;

               2)

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

               3)

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Republic of Austria and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012.


title: Case T-140/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 2009 — Ferrero v OHIM — Tirol Milch (TiMi KiNDERJOGHURT) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative trade mark TiMi KiNDERJOGHURT — Earlier word mark KINDER — Relative ground for refusal — Lack of similarity of the signs — Earlier opposition proceedings — Absence of res judicata — Article 8(1)(b), Article 8(5) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 [now Article 8(1)(b), Article 8(5) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/44

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 2009 — Ferrero v OHIM — Tirol Milch (TiMi KiNDERJOGHURT)
   (Case T-140/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative trade mark TiMi KiNDERJOGHURT - Earlier word mark KINDER - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of similarity of the signs - Earlier opposition proceedings - Absence of res judicata - Article 8(1)(b), Article 8(5) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 [now Article 8(1)(b), Article 8(5) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2009/C 282/83
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ferrero SpA (Alba, Italy) (represented by: C. Gielen and F. Jacobacci, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Tirol Milch reg.Gen.mbH Innsbruck (Innsbruck, Austria)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2008 (Case R 682/2007-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Ferrero SpA and Tirol Milch reg.Gen.mbH Innsbruck.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ferrero SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.


title: Case C-36/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Pioneer Hi Bred Italia Srl v Ministero delle Politiche agricole alimentari e forestali (Agriculture — Genetically modified organisms — Council Directive 2002/53/EC — Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Genetically modified organisms accepted for inclusion in the common catalogue — Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 — Article 20 — Existing products — Directive 2001/18/EC — Article 26a — Measures to avoid the unintended presence of genetically modified organisms — National measures prohibiting the cultivation of genetically modified organisms accepted for inclusion in the common catalogue and authorised as existing products pending measures based on Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Pioneer Hi Bred Italia Srl v Ministero delle Politiche agricole alimentari e forestali
   (Case C-36/11) (1)

   (Agriculture - Genetically modified organisms - Council Directive 2002/53/EC - Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species - Genetically modified organisms accepted for inclusion in the common catalogue - Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 - Article 20 - Existing products - Directive 2001/18/EC - Article 26a - Measures to avoid the unintended presence of genetically modified organisms - National measures prohibiting the cultivation of genetically modified organisms accepted for inclusion in the common catalogue and authorised as existing products pending measures based on Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC)
   2012/C 355/06
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pioneer Hi Bred Italia Srl

      Defendant: Ministero delle Politiche agricole alimentari e forestali

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Second Chamber — Interpretation of Articles 16, 19, 22 and 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1) — Interpretation of Article 19 of Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (OJ 2002 L 193, p. 1) — Application for authorisation to cultivate GMOs listed in the European common catalogue — Refused by the competent authority because of the lack of internal general measures governing such matters.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The cultivation of genetically modified organisms such as the MON 810 maize varieties cannot be made subject to a national authorisation procedure when the use and marketing of those varieties are authorised pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed and those varieties have been accepted for inclusion in the common catalogue provided for in Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species, as amended by Regulation No 1829/2003;

               2.

               Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, as amended by Directive 2008/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008, does not entitle a Member State to prohibit in a general manner the cultivation on its territory of such genetically modified organisms pending the adoption of coexistence measures to avoid the unintended presence of genetically modified organisms in other crops.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.


title: Case T-424/11: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Cementos Molins v Commission

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/26

         Order of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Cementos Molins v Commission
   (Case T-424/11) (1)

   2013/C 38/48
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case C-221/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 13 May 2015 — Openbaar Ministerie v Etablissements Fr. Colruyt NV

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 13 May 2015 — Openbaar Ministerie v Etablissements Fr. Colruyt NV
   (Case C-221/15)
   (2015/C 262/07)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Openbaar Ministerie

      Respondent: Etablissements Fr. Colruyt NV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 15(1) of Directive 2011/64/EU (1), whether or not read in conjunction with Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) of 7 December 2000, preclude a national measure which requires retailers to respect minimum prices by prohibiting the application of a price for tobacco products which is lower than the price that the manufacturer/importer has affixed to the revenue stamp?

               2.

               Does Article 34 TFEU preclude a national measure which requires retailers to respect minimum prices by prohibiting the application of a price for tobacco products which is lower than the price that the manufacturer/importer has affixed to the revenue stamp?

               3.

               Does Article 4(3) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 101 TFEU, preclude a national measure which requires retailers to respect minimum prices by prohibiting the application of a price for tobacco products which is lower than the price that the manufacturer/importer has affixed to the revenue stamp?

      (1)  Council Directive of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (OJ 2011 L 176, p. 24).

      (2)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 March 2000 in Case C-246/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Arnhem): criminal proceedings against Berendse-Koenen M.G. en Berendse H.D. Maatschap (Directive 83/189/EEC — Prohibition on growth promoters — Measures having equivalent effect)

text:
27.5.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 149/9
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Third Chamber)                                                              (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 23 March 2000
                         of 23 March 2000
                                                                           in Joined Cases C-310/98 and C-406/98 (references for
in Case C-246/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  preliminary rulings from the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzol-
the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Arnhem): criminal pro-                     lamt Neubrandenburg v Leszek Labis, trading as ‘Przedsie-
ceedings against Berendse-Koenen M.G. en Berendse H.D.                     biorstwo Transportowo-Handlowe “Met-Trans”’ C-310/
                            Maatschap (1)                                  98), and Sagpol SC Transport Miedzynarodowy i Spedycja
                                                                                (C-406/98) (1)
(Directive 83/189/EEC — Prohibition on growth promoters
                                                                           (Free movement of goods — External transit transaction —
             — Measures having equivalent effect)
                                                                           Movement under cover of a TIR carnet — Offences or
                                                                           irregularities — Evidence of the place where the offence or
                                                                           irregularity was committed — Time-limit for producing
                          (2000/C 149/14)                                  evidence — Types of evidence admissible — Compensation
                                                                                procedure)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                     (2000/C 149/15)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-246/98: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                  in the European Court Reports)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Arrondissements-
rechtbank te Arnhem, Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling in
the criminal proceedings before that court against Berendse-               In Joined Cases C-310/98 and C-406/98: Hauptzollamt Neu-
Koenen M.G. en Berendse H.D. Maatschap, on the interpret-                  brandenburg and Leszek Labis, trading as ‘Przedsiebiorstwo
ation of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983                     Transportowo-Handlowe “Met-Trans”’ (C-310/98), and Sagpol
laying down a procedure for the provision of information in                SC Transport Miedzynarodowy i Spedycja (C-406/98) —
the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1983                  Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC
L 109, p. 8), as amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of                Treaty (now Article 234 EC), by the Bundesfinanzhof, Ger-
22 March 1988 (OJ 1988 L 81, p. 75), and Articles 30 and                   many, in proceedings before that court on the interpretation
36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC                  of Articles 454 and 455 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
and 30 EC) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                       No 2454/93, of 2 July 1993, laying down provisions for the
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-                implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
mann (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; P. Léger,                  establishing the Community customs code (OJ 1993 L 253,
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the              p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 March 2000, in which                 President of the Chamber acting as President of the Fifth
it has ruled:                                                              Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm
                                                                           and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
                                                                           H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                                                                           a judgment on 23 March 2000, the operative part of which
Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now Article 28 EC) does not preclude a        provides as follows:
national rule such as that laid down by Article 3(1) of the
Verordening Stoffen met sympathico mimetische werking (PVV)
1991, read in conjunction with Article 2 thereof.                          1. The first paragraph of Article 454(3) of Commission Regulation
                                                                               (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for
                                                                               the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
                                                                               establishing the Community customs code must be interpreted as
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                                      meaning that the evidence as to where an offence or irregularity
                                                                               was committed required by the customs authorities of the Member
                                                                               State where that offence or irregularity was discovered need not
                                                                               consist only of written documents establishing that the competent
                                                                               authorities of another Member State have made a finding that
                                                                               the offence or irregularity was committed in their country.


title: Case C-52/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that Court of 17 December 2003 in the case of Aro Tubi Trafilerie S.p.A. against Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that Court of 17 December 2003 in the case of Aro Tubi Trafilerie S.p.A. against Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze
   (Case C-52/04)
   (2004/C 94/41)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) of 17 December 2003, received at the Court Registry on 10 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Aro Tubi Trafilerie S.p.A. against Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze on the following question:
   Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 93/104/EC (1) of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18), when read in the light of Article 2(2) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1), to be interpreted as meaning that the firstmentioned provision does not apply to the working time of the personnel of a public fire service who carry out operational duties?

      (1)  OJ L 307, p. 18.


title: Case C-329/09 P: Appeal brought on 17 August 2009 by Iride SpA, formerly AMGA SpA, against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber, extended Composition) delivered on 11 June 2009 in Case T-300/02 AMGA v Commission

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/41

         Appeal brought on 17 August 2009 by Iride SpA, formerly AMGA SpA, against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber, extended Composition) delivered on 11 June 2009 in Case T-300/02 AMGA v Commission
   (Case C-329/09 P)
   2009/C 267/72
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Iride SpA, formerly AMGA SpA (represented by L. Radicati di Brozolo and T. Ubaldi, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               setting aside of the judgment in Case T-300/02 for distortion of the evidence in the file and error in the legal conclusions drawn by the Court of First Instance from that evidence in so far as it declares that the contested decision (1) is not of individual concern to Azienda Mediterranea Gas e Acqua S.p.A. (AMGA) and that the action brought by the latter in Case T300/02 is inadmissible;

               —

               a declaration that action brought in Case T300/02 is admissible and an order referring the case back to the Court of First Instance to be dealt with on its merits, as provided for by Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice;

               —

               an order that the Commission should pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, Iride puts forwards a single ground of appeal, concerning distortion of the evidence in the file and an error in legal conclusions drawn by the Court of First Instance from incorrect findings made in the judgment, as provided for in Article 230(4) EC and the relevant Community case-law. In Iride’s opinion, in particular, the Court of First Instance distorted the clear sense of the evidence that the Company produced for it to evaluate in order to confirm the treatment of AGMA as an actual recipient of individual aid granted under the scheme at issue, recovery of which had been ordered by the Commission. Because of that distortion of the evidence in the file, therefore, the Court of First Instance drew the incorrect inference that the contested decision was not of individual concern to the Company and that its action was, consequently, inadmissible.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).