18.12.1999            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 366/31
— that Article 60 of the Staff Regulations has been                     Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-320/94
     erroneously applied in that the aim of that provision is to                                  and Others (1)
     penalize the production of medical certificates issued
     purely to oblige the patient and not the infringement of a                                 (1999/C 366/67)
     duty of good faith. Since the defendant alleged that the
     applicant had infringed a duty of good faith, it was required
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
     to found its decision solely on Article 86 of the Staff
     Regulations instead of on Article 60.
                                                                        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
The applicant submits finally that, by failing to comply with           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
the Staff Regulations and refusing to assist her in proceedings         Communities has ordered the removal of Cases T-320/94,
against the medical officer, the defendant has infringed                T-323/94, T-324/94, T-332/94, T-333/94, T-344/94,
Article 24 of those Regulations so as to give rise to liability on      T-345/94 and T-351/94 from the list of Joined Cases T-320/94
its part.                                                               and Others: Klaus Harings and Others v Council of the
                                                                        European Union and Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties.
                                                                        (1) OJ No C 351 of 10.12.1994.
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-85/93
                          and Others (1)
                        (1999/C 366/65)
                                                                        Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-363/94 and
                  (Language of the case: German)                                                    Others (1)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth                                       (1999/C 366/68)
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal                                       (Language of the case: German)
of Cases T-85/93, T-87/93, T-126/93, T-130/93, T-35/94,
T-40/94, T-198/94, T-212/94, T-227/94, T-236/94,                        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
T-237/94, T-238/94, T-278/94, T-279/94, T-281/94,                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
T-283/94, T-284/94, T-349/94, T-350/94, T-357/94 and                    Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
T-360/94 from the list of Joined Cases T-85/93 and Others:              Joined Cases T-363/94 and Others: Benno and Hans Georg
Helmut Bösl and Others v Council of the European Union and              Theunissen and Others v Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities.                                 Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ Nos C 178 of 18.7.1990, C 34 of 9.2.1991, C 90 of 26.3.1994,     (1) OJ No C 370 of 24.12.1994, C 400 of 31.12.1994, C 54 of
    C 218 of 6.8.1994, C 304 of 29.10.1994 and C 370 of
                                                                            4.3.1995, C 74 of 25.3.1995 and C 119 of 13.5.1995.
    24.12.1994.
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-85/93               Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-366/94
                          and Others (1)                                                          and Others (1)
                        (1999/C 366/66)                                                         (1999/C 366/69)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                         (Language of the cases: German)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth               By order of 29 September 1999, the President of the Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
of the European Communities has ordered the removal of the              Communities has ordered the removal of Cases T-366/94,
names of the applicants Peter Dalhaus, Klaus Buck, Karl-Heinz           T-3/95, T-14/95, T-120/95 and T-124/95 from the list of
Rohler and Ludger Beckhoff from the list of applicants in Case          cases in Joined Cases T-366/94 and Others: Hilde Diekmeier
T-247/94 - Joined Cases T-85/93 and Others: Helmut Bösl and             and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission
Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of                of the European Communities.
the European Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ No C 370 of 24.12.1994, No C 54 of 4.3.1995, No C 74 of
(1) OJ No C 233 of 20.8.1994.                                               25.3.1995, No C 174 of 8.7.1995 and No C 208 of 12.8.1995.


title: Case T-352/12: Action brought on 3 August 2012 — Grupo Flexi de León v OHIM (FLEXI)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/26

      Action brought on 3 August 2012 — Grupo Flexi de León v OHIM (FLEXI)
      (Case T-352/12)
      (2012/C 331/49)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Grupo Flexi de León, SA de CV (León, Mexico) (represented by M. Zarobe, lawyer)

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

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 May 2012 in Case R 1335/2011-2 in relation to Community trade mark application No 9 532 797‘FLEXI’;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘FLEXI’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 9 532 797

         Decision of the Examiner: application rejected

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

         Pleas in law: infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-186/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 15 April 2010 — Tural Oguz v Secretary of State for the Home Department

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 15 April 2010 — Tural Oguz v Secretary of State for the Home Department
   (Case C-186/10)
   2010/C 179/32
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tural Oguz

      Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Question referred

   Where a Turkish national, having leave to remain in the United Kingdom on condition that he does not engage in any business or profession, enters into self-employment in breach of that condition and then applies to the national authorities for further leave to remain on the basis of the business which he has now established, is he entitled to the benefit of Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey?


title: Case C-62/01 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2001 (facsimile of 9 February 2001) by Anna Maria Campogrande against the judgment delivered on 7 December 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-136/98 between A.M. Campogrande and Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.5.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 134/5
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               the freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide
                                                                          services actually have a duty to account to the competent
—     declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its          authorities of the Member State of origin only.
      obligations under Council Directive 92/49/EEC (1) of
      18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance          Lastly, under the last sentence of Article 2(5)(d) of Decree
      other than life assurance and amending Directives                   No 70, insurance undertakings operating in Italy, including
      73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance                 those that conduct their business under the freedom of
      Directive) in that it has set up and kept in force a system         establishment or the freedom to provide services, are required
      of premium controls applicable to all contracts for the             to contribute to the funding and management costs of the data
      insurance of civil liability arising from the use of motor          bank set up under Decree No 70. A requirement such as that
      vehicles in relation to risks situated within Italian territory,    is linked to the obligation to provide ISVAP with information
      without distinguishing between insurance companies                  laid down by Article 2 of Decree No 70, which is itself
      having their head office in Italy and those conducting              inconsistent with Article 44 of the directive. Consequently, the
      their business in Italy through branch offices or under the         obligation to contribute to the funding of the data bank
      freedom to provide services, in breach of:                          imposed upon undertakings operating under the freedom of
                                                                          establishment or the freedom to provide services within Italian
      (a)   the principle of the freedom to set premiums and              territory is clearly also inconsistent with Community law.
            the abolition of prior or systematic controls over
            premiums and contracts, as dealt with in Articles 6,
            29 and 39 of the said directive;
                                                                          (1) OJ 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1.
      (b) the provisions of Article 44 of the said directive,
            which concern arrangements for gathering infor-
            mation on the amount of the premiums, claims and
            commission, the frequency and average cost of
            claims, and the exchange of information between
            the regulatory authorities of the Member State of
            origin and those of the host Member State;
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
      proceedings.
                                                                          Appeal brought on 12 February 2001 (facsimile of 9 Feb-
                                                                          ruary 2001) by Anna Maria Campogrande against the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           judgment delivered on 7 December 2000 by the Fourth
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
The Commission submits that:                                              Communities in Case T-136/98 between A.M. Campo-
                                                                            grande and Commission of the European Communities
Freezing the premiums and certain other components of
the contractual offer, and requiring all civil liability motor                                     (Case C-62/01 P)
insurance undertakings to offer contracts with premiums
calculated by reference to a no-claims bonus, and with full
indemnity, for between ITL 500 000 and ITL 1 000 000, are                                          (2001/C 134/09)
measures which should be regarded as inconsistent with the
principle of freedom to set premiums enshrined by Articles 6,
29 and 39 of Directive 92/49/EEC. Insurers who provide                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 December
contracts covering risks situated within Italian territory do not         2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
enjoy the right to determine freely these components of their             of the European Communities in Case T-136/98 between
contractual offer. There appears to be no justification for this          A.M. Campogrande and Commission of the European Com-
restriction of the freedom to set premiums.                               munities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities on 12 February 2001 (facsimile of
                                                                          9 February 2001) by A.M. Campogrande, represented by Anne
Article 2(5)(a) and (d) of Decree No 70 of 28 March 2000,
                                                                          Krywin, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
which confers upon ISVAP (the Istituto per la vigilanza sulle
assicurazioni private e di interesse collective, the Private and
Collective Interest Insurance Supervisory Authority) authority
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
to supervise insurance undertakings offering ‘compulsory
motor insurance’ in connection with the matters set out in
Article 2(2), (3) and (4), is incompatible with the provisions of
                                                                          Declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;
Article 44 of the directive concerning the gathering of
information on the amount of the premiums, claims and
commissions, the frequency and average cost of claims,                    Accordingly,
and the exchange of information between the supervisory
authorities of the Member State of origin and those of the
host Member State. As regards the communication of such                   —     set aside the judgment in Case T-136/98 of the Court of
information, insurance undertakings operating in Italy under                    First Instance of 5 December 2000 in so far as it finds:
 ---pagebreak--- C 134/6                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          5.5.2001
      —     at paragraph 66: the claim for damages to make                     —     it is at the very least contradictory to use as evidence,
            reparation for the damage caused by the reprisals is                     in the procedure before the Court, an administrative
            inadmissible in the absence of proper pre-litigation                     enquiry which was conducted in a manner which
            procedure beforehand.                                                    was censured by the Court of First Instance itself,
                                                                                and the results of which are challenged by the
                                                                                applicant.
      —     at paragraph 67: the claim for compensation does
            not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court, in view             —     it is altogether contradictory for the Court of First
            of the form of order sought;                                             Instance to make use of earlier staff reports in order
                                                                                to put in question the applicant’s abilities and thus
                                                                                prove that her problems at work could not be
      —     at paragraph 68: annulment of the contested
                                                                                attributed to sexual harassment. Its reasoning does
            decision is sufficient to make good the non-material
                                                                                not moreover settle the question whether the failure
            damage caused to the applicant by the uncertainty
                                                                                to reward the applicant for progress is not in fact
            in which the Commission left her as regards the
                                                                                the result of her refusal to succumb to the pressures
            action it proposed to take on her request for
                                                                                of sexual harassment.
            assistance and the results of its administrative
            enquiry;
                                                                          —    Infringement of Community law and the relevant case-
                                                                               law on new pleas in law.
      —     at paragraph 69: the applicant has not established to
            the requisite legal standard the damage caused by             —    Justice denied in respect of liability.
            having been exposed to the consequences of having
            complained of sexual harassment, to which the
                                                                          —    Infringement of the rights of the defence: the Court of
            Commission was indifferent.
                                                                               First Instance unreasonably drew inferences from an
                                                                               administrative enquiry which was contested by the appli-
      —     at paragraph 70: the applicant did not adduce the                  cant who had not been able to submit observations or be
            abovementioned evidence with regard either to the                  present to hear the evidence of witnesses or of the person
            conduct prior to the incident of 27 February 1997                  accused of the conduct under investigation.
            or the incident itself;
—     recognise that there was sexual harassment and that non-
      material damage was caused to the appellant;
—     order the defendant to pay damages together with interest
      in an amount to be determined by the Court;                         Action brought on 20 February 2001 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the United
                                                                                Kingdom
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.
                                                                                (Case C-85/01)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (2001/C 134/10)
—     Breach of the obligation to state reasons:                          An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 February
                                                                          2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      —     by simply annulling the implied rejection, the Court          represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, acting as Agent, with
            of First Instance has altered the degree of seriousness       an address for service in Luxembourg.
            of the Commission’s failure to fulfil its obligations
            after criticising the Commission at length in the
            grounds of the judgment, thus leading to a regret-            The Applicant claims that the Court should:
            table contradiction in those grounds.
                                                                          —    declare that, by failing to ensure that the bathing waters
                                                                               in Blackpool and adjacent to Southport comply with the
      —     by stating, first, that the applicant did not prove that           limit values set in accordance with Article 3 of Council
            she had in fact suffered sexual harassment and,                    Directive 76/160/EEC (1), in compliance with the judg-
            secondly, by acknowledging the existence of conduct                ment of the Court of Justice in Case C-56/90 delivered on
            falling within the scope of sexual harassment in the               14 July 1993, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its
            same judgment, the Court of First Instance has                     obligations under paragraph 1 of Article 228 of the EC
            contradicted itself in its grounds.                                Treaty;


title: Case C-297/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2010 — Sabine Hennigs v Eisenbahn-Bundesamt

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2010 — Sabine Hennigs v Eisenbahn-Bundesamt
   (Case C-297/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sabine Hennigs

      Defendant: Eisenbahn-Bundesamt

      Questions referred

               1.

               Taking into account the right of parties to a collective agreement to collective bargaining which is guaranteed by primary law (now Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, ‘CFREU’), does a collective pay agreement for public sector employees, which, as in Paragraph 27 of the Bundes-angestelltentarifvertrag (Federal collective agreement for contractual public sector employees, ‘BAT’) in conjunction with the Vergütungstarifvertrag (collective pay agreement) No 35 under the BAT, determines basic pay in individual salary groups by age categories, infringe the primary-law prohibition of age discrimination (now Article 21(1) of the CFREU) as given expression by Directive 2000/78/EC? (1)

               2.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative by the Court of Justice of the European Union or by the Bundesarbeitsgericht on the basis of the ruling of the Court of Justice in the preliminary reference proceedings:

                           (a)

                           Does the right to collective bargaining give the parties to a collective agreement the discretion to eliminate such discrimination by transferring the employees to a new collective pay structure based on job, performance and professional experience, whilst preserving the entitlements they acquired in the old tariff structure?

                           (b)

                           Must question 2 a) in any event be answered in the affirmative if the final assignment of the transferred employees to the grades within a pay group of the new collective pay structure does not depend solely on the age category attained in the old tariff structure and if the employees who are admitted to a higher grade of the new structure typically have more professional experience than the employees assigned to a lower grade?

               3.

               If questions 2 (a) and (b) are answered in the negative by the Court of Justice of the European Union or by the Bundesarbeitsgericht on the basis of the principles set out by the Court of Justice in its preliminary ruling:

                           (a)

                           Is indirect discrimination on grounds of age justified by the fact that it is a legitimate aim to preserve acquired social entitlements and because it is an appropriate and necessary means of achieving that aim to temporarily continue to treat older and younger employees differently for the purposes of a transitional arrangement, if this difference of treatment is being gradually phased out and the only alternative in practice would be to reduce the pay of older employees?

                           (b)

                           Taking into account the right to collective bargaining and the associated autonomy in collective bargaining, must question 3(a) be answered in the affirmative if parties to a collective agreement agree on such a transitional arrangement?

               4.

               If questions 3(a) and (b) are answered in the negative by the Court of Justice of the European Union or by the Bundesarbeitsgericht on the basis of the principles set out by the Court of Justice in its preliminary ruling:
               Even taking into account the associated additional costs for the employer concerned and the right of the parties to a collective agreement to collective bargaining, must the infringement of the primary-law prohibition on age discrimination, which is inherent in a collective pay structure and which makes it invalid as a whole, always only be eliminated by taking the highest age category as a basis in each case when applying the collective pay agreements until a new system which is in conformity with Union law comes into force?

               5.

               If question 4 is answered in the negative by the Court of Justice of the European Union or by the Bundesarbeitsgericht on the basis of the principles set out by the Court of Justice in its preliminary ruling:
               Having regard to the right of the parties to a collective agreement to collective bargaining, would it be compatible with the Union law prohibition on age discrimination and the requirement for an effective sanction in the event of a breach of that prohibition, to grant the parties to a collective agreement a manageable deadline (e.g. six months) in which to retrospectively correct the invalidity of the pay structure they have agreed, and stipulate that in the event that no new structure which is in conformity with Union law is introduced within the deadline, in applying collective rules in each case the highest age category will be taken as a basis and, if so, what discretion in terms of the duration of the retrospective effect of the new structure which is in conformity with Union law could be granted to the parties to a collective agreement?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation; OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Case C-189/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 16 April 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Sélim Abdeli

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/36

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 16 April 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Sélim Abdeli
      (Case C-189/10)
      (2010/C 161/54)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour de Cassation

         Party to the main proceedings

      Sélim Abdeli

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, signed at Lisbon on 13 December 2007, preclude legislation such as that resulting from Article 23-2, paragraph 2, and Article 23-5, paragraph 2, of Order No 58-1067 of 7 November 1958, created by Organic Law No 2009-1523 of 10 December 2009, in so far as those provisions require courts to rule as a matter of priority on the submission to the Constitutional Council of the question of constitutionality referred to them, inasmuch as that question relates to whether domestic legislation, because it is contrary to European Union law, is in breach of the Constitution?

                  2.

                  Does Article 67 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, signed at Lisbon on 13 December 2007, preclude legislation such as that resulting from Article 78-2, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that ‘in an area between the land border of France with the States party to the Convention signed at Schengen on 19 June 1990 and a line traced 20 kilometres inside that border, and in the publicly accessible areas of ports, airports and railway or bus stations open to international traffic, designated by order, the identity of any person may also be checked, in accordance with the procedure provided for in paragraph 1, in order to ascertain whether the obligations laid down by law to possess, carry and present papers and documents are observed. Where that control takes place on board an international train, it may be carried out on the section of the journey between the border and the first stop situated beyond the twenty kilometres from the border. However, on international trains on lines with particular service characteristics the control may also be carried out between that stop and a stop situated within the next fifty kilometres. Those lines and those stops are designated by Ministerial order. Where there is a section of motorway starting in the area referred to in the first sentence of this paragraph and the first motorway tollbooth is situated beyond the twenty kilometre line, the control may also take place up to that first tollbooth, on parking areas and on the site of that tollbooth and the adjoining parking areas. The tollbooths concerned by this provision shall be designated by order’?


               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/28

         Removal from the Register of Case T-105/02 (1)

   (2004/C 314/63)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 21 October 2004, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-105/02, Matratzen Concord GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)   OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.


title: Case T-67/99: Action brought on 4 March 1999 by 'K' against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 160/28               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.6.1999
Action brought on 4 March 1999 by ‘K’ against the                         Action brought on 5 March 1999 by NV TODITEC against
         Commission of the European Communities                                  the Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-67/99)
                                                                                (Case T-68/99)
                         (1999/C 160/51)
                                                                                (1999/C 160/52)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                    (Language of the case: English)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 March 1999 by ‘K’, represented
by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2, rue du                 ties was brought before the Court of the First Instance of the
Fort Rheinsheim.                                                          European Communities on 5 March 1999 by NV Toditec,
                                                                          represented by Mrs Elke Ballon, with an address for service in
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr Koen De Vleeschauwer,
                                                                          6, rue Heindrich Heine.
— annul the decision of 15 May 1998 by which the
     appointing authority refused the request for assistance
     under article 24 of the Staff Regulations submitted by the           The applicant claims that the Court should:
     applicant on 20 March 1998 by note addressed to S. Smidt,
     Director-General of DG IX, pursuant to article 90(1) of the          — declare the application of NV Toditec admissible and well
     Staff Regulations,                                                        founded,
— annul the express decision rejecting the complaint lodged               — in consequence, order the Commission of the European
     by the applicant in the Secretariat-General of the defendant              Communities to pay NV Toditec the equivalent in euro of
     institution on 18 August 1998, the said rejection decision                the sum of 74 967 EUR, together with interest at the rate
     having been signed on 23 November 1998 by Mr Liikanen,                    of 7 % (legal rate applicable in Belgium) from 5 June 1998,
     Member of the Commission, and notified to the applicant
     on 4 December 1998,
                                                                          — order the Commission to pay the costs of the procedure.
— order the defendant to pay all the costs in any event.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, a Commission official whose son attended the               On 13 February 1996 the applicant, by entering into an
‘Clovis’ crèche in Brussels, submitted a request under article            agreement with the European Community, represented by the
24 of the Staff Regulations seeking the Commission’s assistance           Commission (DG III – Industry), undertook to carry out several
in connection with the procedure initiated in relation to                 tasks in a project called ‘Dissemination Coordination for OMI’
instances of paedophilia which had occurred in that crèche.               or ‘Discomi’ It was concluded within the framework of the
He requested, first, as a civil claimant, reimbursement of, and           Esprit Programme of the European Union. The overall objective
acceptance of responsibility for, all lawyer’s fees and legal costs       of the ‘Discomi’ project was to improve the visibility of ‘OMI’
incurred in the context of the procedure before the Brussels              (Open Microprocessor Systems Initiative) in general and of its
Public Prosecutor and, second, compensation for all damage                commercially available results in particular to the widest
suffered by his family and by him on account of the matters               possible audience, through the facilitation and co-ordination
giving rise to the criminal proceedings.                                  of various dissemination measures. The tasks were to be
                                                                          carried out by the applicant as coordinator in co-operation
By the contested decision, the defendant refused that request,            with other organisations. The duration of the contract was 12
maintaining that the matter did not fall within the scope of              months from 1 December 1995, divided into two phases
article 24 of the Staff Regulations, since it had no connection           (period I from 1 December 1995 to 31 May 1996; Period II
with the applicant’s position or duties.                                  from 1 June to 30 November 1996).
In support of his application, the applicant pleads infringement
of the Staff Regulations, particularly article 24, as well as             The applicant is based on the failure by the Commission to
failure to observe general principles of law, such as those               discharge its contractual obligations under the ‘Discomi’
relating to the right to fair hearing, the duty to have regard for        contract.
the welfare and interests of officials, the protection of legitimate
expectations and the obligation to provide a lawful and
relevant statement of reasons. According to the applicant, his            The applicants submits that the Commission wrongfully
grievance is that, by refusing the request for assistance —               refused to accept the costs that were submitted by the applicant
which was made, moreover, at the end of a procedure which                 in relation to the project. No reasons were given for the refusal,
did not comply with the basic rules generally applied and in              nor was the applicant given the opportunity to defend itself.
force in the defendant institution —, the latter contravened              The Commission was wrong in its assessment of the major
the rules and principles invoked.                                         efforts of the applicant and its employees to make the Discomi
                                                                          project a success. The contract was correctly executed by the
                                                                          applicant and all costs submitted by the applicant are justified.


title: Case F-33/09: Action brought on 1 April 2009 — Tzvetanova v Commission

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/22

         Action brought on 1 April 2009 — Tzvetanova v Commission
   (Case F-33/09)
   2009/C 129/40
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Aglika Tzvetanova (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Commission to refuse the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority not to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 July 2005 in Case C-198/03 P: Commission of the European Communities v CEVA Santé Animale SA, Pfizer Enterprises Sàrl, International Federation for Animal Health (IFAH) (Appeal — Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 — Veterinary medicinal products — Establishment of a maximum residue level for progesterone — Conditions governing the non-contractual liability of the Community)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 12 July 2005
   in Case C-198/03 P: Commission of the European Communities v CEVA Santé Animale SA, Pfizer Enterprises Sàrl, International Federation for Animal Health (IFAH) (1)

   (Appeal - Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 - Veterinary medicinal products - Establishment of a maximum residue level for progesterone - Conditions governing the non-contractual liability of the Community)
   (2005/C 217/12)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-198/03 P — Appeal under Artricle 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 12 May 2003 by Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. Christoforou and M. Shotter), the other parties to the proceedings being: CEVA Santé Animale SA, having its registered office in Libourne (France), (Lawyers: D. Waelbroeck, N. Rampal, and U. Zinsmeister), Pfizer Enterprises Sàrl, formerly Pharmacia Enterprises SA and, prior to that, Pharmacia & Upjohn SA, having its registered office in Luxembourg (Luxembourg) (Lawyers: D. Waelbroeck, N. Rampa and U. Zinsmeister), supported by International Federation for Animal Health (IFAH), formerly Fédération européenne de la santé animale (Fedesa), established in Brussels (Belgium), (Lawyer: A. Vandencasteele) — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur), C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, J. P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič, J. Malenovský, U. Lõhmus and E. Levits, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 26 February 2003 in Joined Cases T-344/00 and T-345/00 CEVA and Pharmacia Enterprises v Commission in so far as it established that there had been inaction on the part of the Commission of the European Communities between 1 January 2000 and 25 July 2001 of such a kind as to give rise to liability on the part of the Community;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions;

               3.

               Orders CEVA Santé Animale SA and Pfizer Enterprises Sàrl to pay the costs of both the proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities and the present proceedings;

               4.

               Orders the International Federation for Animal Health to bear its own costs in both the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 06.09.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court of 14 March 2000 in Joined Cases C-102/98 and C-211/98 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Ibrahim Kocak v Landesversicherungsanstalt Oberfranken und Mittelfranken (C-102/98) and Ramazan Örs v Bundesknappschaft (C-211/98) (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decisions of the Association Council — Social Security — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality — Direct effect — Scope — Legislation of a Member State on determination of dates of birth for the purposes of allocating a social security number and awarding a retirement pension)

text:
C 149/2                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          27.5.2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Second Chamber)                                                             of 14 March 2000
                          of 9 March 2000                                    in Joined Cases C-102/98 and C-211/98 (references for a
                                                                             preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Ibrahim
                                                                             Kocak v Landesversicherungsanstalt Oberfranken und
in Case C-386/98: Commission of the European Communi-                        Mittelfranken (C-102/98) and Ramazan Örs v Bundes-
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)                                                 knappschaft (C-211/98) (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                       (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decisions of the
Directive 93/104/EC — Organisation of working time —                         Association Council — Social Security — Principle of non-
             Failure to transpose into national law)                         discrimination on grounds of nationality — Direct effect —
                                                                             Scope — Legislation of a Member State on determination of
                                                                             dates of birth for the purposes of allocating a social security
                          (2000/C 149/02)                                             number and awarding a retirement pension)
                                                                                (2000/C 149/03)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-386/98: Commission of the European Communities                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Agents: P.J. Kuijper and A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (Agents:                                 in the European Court Reports)
Professor U. Leanza, assisted by D. Del Gaizo) — application
for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council                In Joined Cases C-102/98 and C-211/98: Reference to the
Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain                   Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234
aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307,                  EC) by the Bundessozialgericht, Germany, for a preliminary
p. 18), and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof,                  ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the          Ibrahim Kocak v Landesversicherungsanstalt Oberfranken und
EC Treaty — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: R.                      Mittelfranken (C-102/98) and Ramazan Örs v Bundes-
Schintgen, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch and V. Skouris                knappschaft (C-211/98), on the interpretation of Article 9
(Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,               of the Agreement establishing an Association between the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 March 2000, in which it:                European Economic Community and Turkey signed at Ankara
                                                                             on 12 September 1963 and concluded, approved and con-
                                                                             firmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the       64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 (OJ 1977 L 361, p. 29), of
    laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply       Article 37 of the Additional Protocol signed in Brussels on
    with Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993                     23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed
    concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time,          on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC)
    the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that     No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 (OJ 1977 L 361, p. 61), of
    directive;                                                               Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council
                                                                             of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association
                                                                             (not published), and of Article 3(1) of Decision No 3/80 of the
2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                             Association Council of the same date on the application of the
                                                                             social security schemes of the Member States of the European
                                                                             Communities to Turkish workers and members of their
                                                                             families (OJ 1983 C 110, p. 60) — the Court, composed of:
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                                  G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón,
                                                                             R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G.
                                                                             Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, H. Ragne-
                                                                             malm, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
                                                                             Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                             judgment on 14 March 2000, in which it held:
 ---pagebreak--- 27.5.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 149/3
Article 3(1) of Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council of             Article 73d(1)(b) of the EC Treaty (now Article 58(1)(b) EC) must
19 September 1998 on the application of the social security schemes        be interpreted as precluding a system of prior authorisation for direct
of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish                foreign investments which confines itself to defining in general terms
workers and members of their families must be interpreted as not           the affected investments as being investments that are such as to
precluding a Member State from applying to Turkish workers                 represent a threat to public policy and public security, with the result
legislation which, for the purposes of awarding a retirement pension       that the persons concerned are unable to ascertain the specific
and determining the social security number allocated for that purpose,     circumstances in which prior authorisation is required.
takes as the conclusive date of birth the one given in the first
declaration made by the person concerned to a social security authority
in that Member State and allows another date of birth to be taken
                                                                           (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
into account only if a document is produced the original of which was
issued before that declaration was made.
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998 and OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                               (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 14 March 2000
                                                                                of 16 March 2000
in Case C-54/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil d’État, France): Association Église de Scientol-             in Joined Cases C-395/96 P and C-396/96 P: Compagnie
ogie de Paris and Scientology International Reserves                       Maritime Belge Transports SA (C-395/96 P), Compagnie
                 Trust v The Prime Minister (1)                            Maritime Belge SA (C-395/96 P) and Dafra-Lines A/S
                                                                           (C-396/96 P) v Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties (1)
(Free movement of capital — Direct foreign investments —
   Prior authorisation — Public policy and public security)
                                                                           (Competition — International maritime transport — Liner
                                                                           conferences — Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 — Article 86
                           (2000/C 149/04)
                                                                           of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) — Collective dominant
                                                                           position — Exclusivity agreement between national auth-
                                                                           orities and liner conferences — Liner conference insisting on
                     (Language of the case: French)                        application of the agreement — Fighting ships — Loyalty
                                                                           rebates — Rights of defence — Fines — Assessment criteria)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                               (2000/C 149/05)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-54/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Conseil d’État,                                   (Language of the case: English)
France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Association Église de Scientologie
de Paris, Scientology International Reserves Trust and The
Prime Minister — on the interpretation of Article 73d(1)(b) of
the EC Treaty (now Article 58(1)(b) EC) — the Court,
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho            In Joined Cases C-395/96 P and C-396/96 P: Compagnie
de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, R. Schintgen (Presidents of                     Maritime Belge Transports SA (C-395/96 P), established in
Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P.                  Antwerp, Belgium, Compagnie Maritime Belge SA (C-395/96
Puissochet, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and V.                    P), established in Antwerp, and Dafra-Lines A/S (C-396/96 P),
Skouris, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; R. Grass, Regis-             established in Copenhagen, Denmark, represented by M. and
trar, has given a judgment on 14 March 2000, in which it has               D. Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
ruled:                                                                     in Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt, 34 Rue


title: Case T-222/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Italy v Commission (State aid — Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Existing aid or new aid — Article 86(2) EC)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/41

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-222/04) (1)

   (State aid - Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Existing aid or new aid - Article 86(2) EC)
   2009/C 180/75
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented: initially, by I. Braguglia and, subsequently, by R. Adam and I. Bruni, Agents, and M. Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Article 2 of 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).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 28.9.2002 (formerly Case C-290/02).


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 April 2004 in Case C-112/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen): Kohlpharma GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (‘Free movement of goods — Medicinal products — Importation — Application for marketing authorisation under a simplified procedure — Common origin’)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 1 April 2004
   in Case C-112/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen): Kohlpharma GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
       (1)

   (‘Free movement of goods - Medicinal products - Importation - Application for marketing authorisation under a simplified procedure - Common origin’)
   (2004/C 106/12)
   Language of the case. German
   In Case C-112/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Higher Regional Court for the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Kohlpharma GmbH and Bundesrepublik Deutschland – on the interpretation of Community law, in particular Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 April 2004, in which it ruled:
   In the case where

               an application for a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product is submitted with reference to a medicinal product that has already been authorised,

               the medicinal product which is the subject of the application is imported from a Member State in which it has obtained a marketing authorisation,

               the assessment of safety and efficacy carried out for the medicinal product which is already authorised can be used in the application for a marketing authorisation for the second medicinal product without any risk to public health,

         Articles 28 EC and 30 EC preclude the application being rejected solely on the ground that the two medicinal products do not have a common origin.

      (1)  OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.


title: Case T-194/16: Action brought on 29 April 2016 — Klassisk investment v EUIPO (CLASSIC FINE FOODS)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/31

         Action brought on 29 April 2016 — Klassisk investment v EUIPO (CLASSIC FINE FOODS)
   (Case T-194/16)
   (2016/C 222/39)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Klassisk investment Ltd (Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China) (represented by: J. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: International registration of the figurative mark with the word components ‘CLASSIC FINE FOODS’ designating the European Union — International registration No 1 222 164

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 29 January 2016 in Case R 1970/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 289, 29.11.2003

text:
13.12.2003        EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                         C 304/35
                                                             III
                                                          (Notices)
                                                      (2003/C 304/63)
                  Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
           OJ C 289, 29.11.2003
           Past publications
           OJ C 275, 15.11.2003
           OJ C 264, 1.11.2003
           OJ C 251, 18.10.2003
           OJ C 239, 4.10.2003
           OJ C 226, 20.9.2003
           OJ C 213, 6.9.2003
                                                These texts are available on:
                                           EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                            CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-546/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Órgano Administrativo de Recursos Contractuales de la Comunidad Autónoma de Euskadi (Spain) lodged on 28 October 2016 — Montte SL v Musikene

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Órgano Administrativo de Recursos Contractuales de la Comunidad Autónoma de Euskadi (Spain) lodged on 28 October 2016 — Montte SL v Musikene
   (Case C-546/16)
   (2017/C 022/12)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Órgano Administrativo de Recursos Contractuales de la Comunidad Autónoma de Euskadi

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Montte SL

      Defendant: Musikene

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Directive 2014/24/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC preclude national legislation such as Article 150(4) TRLCSP, (2) or a practice for interpreting and implementing that legislation, which authorises contracting authorities to establish in the documents governing an open tendering procedure award criteria which apply in successive elimination stages for tenders which do not exceed a predetermined minimum score threshold?

               2.

               If the reply to question 1 is in the negative, does the aforementioned Directive 2014/24 preclude national legislation, or a practice for interpreting and implementing that legislation, which uses in the open procedure the aforementioned system of award criteria which apply in successive elimination stages in such a way that in the last stage there are not sufficient tenders to ensure genuine competition?

               3.

               If the reply to question 2 is in the affirmative, does the aforementioned Directive 2014/24 preclude, because it does not ensure genuine competition or circumvents the mandate to award the contract to the tender with the best quality/price ratio, a clause such as that at issue, in which the price factor is evaluated only for tenders which have obtained 35 out of 50 points in the technical criteria?

      (1)  OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.

      (2)  Consolidated text of the Law on Public Sector Contracts.


title: Case C-369/10 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 March 2011 — Ravensburger AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Educa Borras SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Community word mark MEMORY — Invalidity proceedings — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(c))

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/10

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 March 2011 — Ravensburger AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Educa Borras SA
   (Case C-369/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Community word mark MEMORY - Invalidity proceedings - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(c))
   2011/C 252/18
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Ravensburger AG (represented by: H. Harte-Bavendamm and M. Goldmann, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent), Educa Borras SA

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2010 in Case T-108/09 Ravensburger v OHIM, by which the Court dismissed the action brought against Decision R 305/2008-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 8 January 2009, dismissing the appeal brought against the Cancellation Division’s decision which declares the word mark ‘MEMORY’ invalid, in respect of goods in Classes 9 and 28, in the context of the application for a declaration of invalidity filed by Educa Borras

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Ravensburger AG shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.


title: Case C-96/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — August Storck KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate mouse)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/7

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — August Storck KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      (Case C-96/11 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Community trade mark - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate mouse)
      (2012/C 331/10)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: August Storck KG (represented by: T. Reher and R.W. Staub, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Manea and G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2010 in Case T-13/09 Storck v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2008, rejecting the appeal filed against the decision of the Examiners refusing registration of a three-dimensional sign in the shape of a chocolate mouse as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Class 30 — Distinctive character of the mark

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: Case C-367/14: Action brought on 25 July 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/21

      Action brought on 25 July 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic
      (Case C-367/14)
      (2014/C 395/27)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, D. Grespan and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Italian Republic

         Form of order sought

      The Commission claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 October 2011 in Case C-302/09 concerning recovery from the recipients of aid found to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market according to Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia, (1) the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that decision and under Article 260 TFEU;

                  —

                  order the Italian Republic to pay to the Commission a lump sum, the amount of which is the product of multiplying a daily sum equivalent to EUR 24 578,40 by the number of days of continued infringement from the day on which the judgment in Case C-302/09 was delivered until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case;

                  —

                  order the Italian Republic to pay the Commission a penalty on a six-monthly basis to be determined by the Commission, starting from six months after the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case, by multiplying the daily penalty of EUR 187 264 by 182,5 and by the percentage of the aid still to be recovered at the end of the six-month period on the basis of the amount of the aid to be recovered at the date on which the Court delivers judgment in the present case;

                  —

                  order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The Italian Republic has failed to adopt all the measures necessary to recover the aid declared by the decision to be unlawful and incompatible, which it was required to do by the judgment in Case C-302/09, given that, almost three years after the declaratory judgment, an amount of EUR 33 032 000 (at least) still has to be recovered from 99 recipients, amounting to approximately 70 % of the total amount to be recovered.
      Despite the introduction, after the declaratory judgment, of additional regulatory measures, a large part of the aid has yet to be recovered and no significant progress has been made in that regard.
      Therefore, according to the Commission, the Court should rule that the Italian Republic has failed to comply with the judgment declaring that an infringement had been committed.

         (1)  Commission Decision of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (notified on 10 January 2000 under document number C(1999) 4268) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50).


title: Case T-349/09: Order of the General Court of 6 July 2010 — PAGO International v OHIM — Tirol Milch (Pago) (Community trade mark — Proceedings for revocation — Revocation of the decision of the Board of Appeal — Disappearance of the subject-matter of the proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/37

         Order of the General Court of 6 July 2010 — PAGO International v OHIM — Tirol Milch (Pago)
   (Case T-349/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Proceedings for revocation - Revocation of the decision of the Board of Appeal - Disappearance of the subject-matter of the proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
   2010/C 234/66
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: PAGO International GmbH (Klagenfurt, Austria) (represented by: C. Hauer and C. Schumacher, lawyers)

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

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

      Re:

   Action for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 July 2009 (Case R 864/2008-4) concerning revocation proceedings between Tirol Milch reg. Gen. mbH Innsbruck and PAGPO International GmbH

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case C-204/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 30 April 2012 — Essent Belgium NV v Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt (VREG)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 30 April 2012 — Essent Belgium NV v Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt (VREG)
   (Case C-204/12)
   2012/C 227/12
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Applicant: Essent Belgium NV
   Defendant: Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt (VREG)
   Other Party:

               Vlaamse Gewest

               Vlaamse Gemeenschap

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a national rule, such as that embodied in the Flemish Decreet van 17 juli 2000 houdende de organisatie van de elektriciteitsmarkt (Decree of 17 July 2000 on the organisation of the market in electricity), as implemented by the Besluit (Decision) of the Flemish Government of 5 March 2004, as amended by the Besluit of the Flemish Government of 25 February 2005 on the promotion of the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources, where

                           —

                           an obligation is imposed on the suppliers of electricity to final customers connected to the distribution network or the transmission network, to submit a certain number of green certificates annually to the Regulatory Authority (Article 23 of the aforementioned Decreet);

                           —

                           an administrative fine is imposed by the Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt (VREG) on the suppliers of electricity to final customers connected to the distribution network or the transmission network when the supplier has not submitted a sufficient number of green certificates to fulfil a quota obligation which has been imposed in respect of green certificates (Article 37(2) of the aforementioned Decreet);

                           —

                           the Regulatory Authority cannot or will not take into account any guarantees of origin originating from Norway and the Netherlands, and that being in the absence of implementing measures on the part of the Flemish Government, which has acknowledged the equality or equivalence of those certificates (Article 25 of the aforementioned Decreet and Article 15(1) of the Besluit of 5 March 2004), without that equality or equivalence being investigated by the Regulatory Authority in concrete terms;

                           —

                           in fact, during the whole time that the Decreet of 17 July 2000 was in force, only certificates for the production of green energy generated in the Flemish Region were taken into account when ascertaining whether the quota obligation had been fulfilled, whereas for the suppliers of electricity to final customers connected to the distribution network or transmission network there was no possibility whatsoever of demonstrating that the guarantees of origin submitted met the condition of the existence of equal or equivalent guarantees regarding the granting of such certificates,

                     compatible with Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 11 of the EEA Agreement and/or Article 36 of that Treaty and Article 13 of the EEA Agreement?’

               2.

               Is a national rule as referred to in subquestion 1 above compatible with Article 5 of the then Directive 2001/77/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market?

               3.

               Is a national rule as referred to in subquestion 1 above compatible with the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination as embodied inter alia in Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 3 of the then Directive 2003/54/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 283, p. 33.

      (2)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37.


title: Case C-282/04: Action brought on 30 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/15

         Action brought on 30 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-282/04)
   (2004/C 217/29)
   An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Hans Støvlbæk and Albert Nijenhuis, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that by retaining certain provisions from the statutes of the firm Koninklijke KPN NV, namely that the shares of the firm contain a special named share which is owned by the Netherlands State and to which special rights are attached with regard to the approval of certain decisions taken by the authorised organs of the firm, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 56 and 43 EC;

               —

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In 1998 the Koninklijke PTT Nederland NV was split into two independent firms: the Koninklijke KPN NV (KPN), for telecommunications activities, and the TNT POSTGROEP NV (TPG), for logistics and distribution. The shares of the firm Koninklijke KPN NV contain, alongside normal and preferential shares, a special nominal share to which certain privileges are attached. That special share is currently owned by the Netherlands State.
   Pursuant to the statutes, special rights are attached to that special share with regard to the approval of certain decisions taken by the competent organs of the firm.
   According to the Commission, the rights attached to the special share restrict the free movement of capital and freedom of establishment. Those special powers may, even if they are not explicitly discriminatory, make it more difficult to purchase shares in the undertaking concerned and discourage investors from other Member States from investing in shares of that undertaking. In particular, those rights result in a considerable restriction of the rights which are normally associated with direct investments in KPN. They may therefore affect the free movement of capital and thus constitute a restriction on the movement of capital for the purposes of Article 56 of the EC Treaty.
   As the special powers also make it possible for the Netherlands State to exercise control over the conduct of the firm and the general course of its business, they also influence direct investment and for that reason they may also constitute a restriction of the freedom of establishment laid down in Article 43 of the EC Treaty.


title: Case T-31/08: Order of the General Court of 11 April 2011 — Quantum v OHIM — Quantum (Q Quantum CORPORATION)

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/15

         Order of the General Court of 11 April 2011 — Quantum v OHIM — Quantum (Q Quantum CORPORATION)
   (Case T-31/08) (1)

   2011/C 173/32
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case C-546/03: Action brought on 23 December 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 59/12                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           6.3.2004
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
of by order of that court of 18 November 2003 in
the case of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas against Milupa
                         GmbH & Co KG                                      1.    declare that, by failing to observe the mandatory time-
                                                                                limits for entry in the accounts laid down by Article
                                                                                220(1) of the Community Customs Code (1) (and by
                         (Case C-542/03)
                                                                                Article 5 of Regulation No 1854/89 (2)) the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those
                          (2004/C 59/20)                                         provisions of Community law;
                                                                           2.    declare, furthermore, that inasmuch as late establishment
                                                                                caused delays to the making available of own resources,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                by not paying default interest in accordance with
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                                Article 11 of Regulation 1552/89 (3) up until 31 May
(Federal Finance Court, Germany) of 18 November 2003,
                                                                                2000 and in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation
received at the Court Registry on 23 December 2003, for a
                                                                                No 1150/2000 (4) from 31 May 2000, the Kingdom of
preliminary ruling in the case of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
                                                                                Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the relevant
against Milupa GmbH & Co KG on the following question:
                                                                                provision of Community law;
Are the second sentence of the first subparagraph of
                                                                           3.    order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Article 7(1), the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) and
Article 7(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1222/94, as amended by
Regulation (EC) 229/96, (1) to be interpreted as meaning that
the party concerned is not entitled to grant of an export refund
if, in the production of the exported goods, it was not the
product declared by him, which under the first indent of
Article 1(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1222/94 (2) is assimilated
to skimmed milk powder of the type described in Annex A                    Pleas in law and main arguments
(PG 2), that was used but another product which, in respect of
the non-fat part of its dry matter content, is also assimilated to
skimmed milk powder of the type described in Annex A (PG 2)
by virtue of the first indent of Article 1(2)(f) of Regulation (EC)        The Community rules on own resources are clear in that they
No 1222/94?                                                                refer to the time when the Spanish authorities are obliged to
                                                                           establish such resources: that moment is when the national
                                                                           authorities are in a position to calculate the amount due and
(1) OJ 1996 L 30, p. 24.                                                   to notify the chargeable person that all the relevant Community
(2) OJ 1994 L 136, p. 5.                                                   provisions have been complied with. In the event of a failure
                                                                           to enter duties deriving from a customs debt in the accounts,
                                                                           those rules do not allow the national administration to apply
                                                                           time-limits provided for in their national legislation, which are
                                                                           different from the compulsory time-limits laid down by
                                                                           Community law. Such time-limits must be observed once the
                                                                           debtor is identified and the amount of the debt can be
                                                                           calculated.
Action brought on 23 December 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                               Spain
                                                                           The time at which establishment of own resources must take
                                                                           place is independent of notification to the debtor or of a
                         (Case C-546/03)                                   definitive decision adopted by the national authorities. Those
                                                                           circumstances are relevant only to the relationship between the
                          (2004/C 59/21)                                   national authorities and the debtor, whereas the relationship
                                                                           between the Member State and the Community, as regards
                                                                           own resources, is governed exclusively by compliance with
                                                                           objective conditions concerning entry in the accounts. The
                                                                           obligation to establish own resources and subsequently the
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the              obligation to make them available is independent of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 December                additional time-limits provided for by the national legislation
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        in order to allow the debtor to submit his observations.
represented by M. Díaz-Llanos La Roche and G. Wilms, acting                Therefore, the practice followed by the Spanish authorities
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                      does not comply with Community rules.
 ---pagebreak--- 6.3.2004                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 59/13
As a result of its failure to fulfil those obligations, Spain must               —     2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the
pay default interest, in accordance with Community rules on                            Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council
own resources. According to settled case-law, there is an                              Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the
indissoluble link between the obligation to establish the                              Community’s railways (1);
Community’ own resources, the obligation to credit them to
the Commission’s account within the prescribed time-limit                        —     2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the
and, finally, the obligation to pay default interest, which is                         Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council
owed for the whole period of delay and is payable regardless                           Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway
of the reason for the delay in making the entry in the                                 undertakings (2);
Commission’s account. Consequently, the reference made by
the Spanish authorities to their internal procedures, has no
influence as regards its obligation to pay default interest. In                  —     2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the
order to enable the Commission to calculate the default                                Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of
interest, Spain must communicate to it all the information                             railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of
necessary on the periods which elapsed between the entry in                            charges for the use of railway infrastructure and
the accounts, as the relevant time for the establishment of own                        safety certification (3);
resources, according to the provisions of Community law on
the collection of those resources, and the practice followed by                  and in any event by failing to notify the provisions in
the Spanish authorities. The Kingdom of Spain has failed to                      question to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has
fulfil that obligation.                                                          failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives.
                                                                           —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913 of 12 October 1992 estab-
    lishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1854/89 of 14 June 1989 on the
    entry in the accounts and terms of payment of the amounts of
    import duties or export duties resulting from a customs debt (OJ       Pleas in law and main arguments
    1989 L 186, p. 1).
(3) Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989
    implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of
    the Communities own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1).                   The period prescribed for transposing the directives into
(4) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May                national law expired on 15 March 2003.
    2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system
    of the Communities own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1).
                                                                           (1) OJ L 75 of 15.03.2001, p. 1.
                                                                           (2) OJ L 75 of 15.03.2001, p. 26.
                                                                           (3) OJ L 75 of 15.03.2001, p. 29.
Action brought on 23 December 2003 by the Commission
     of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                             Republic
                                                                           Appeal brought on 29 December 2003 by Unilever
                         (Case C-550/03)                                   Bestfoods (Ireland) Ltd, formerly HB Ice Cream Ltd,
                                                                           against the judgment delivered on 23 October 2003 by
                                                                           the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                          (2004/C 59/22)
                                                                           European Communities in case T-65/98 between Van den
                                                                           Bergh Foods Ltd, formerly HB Ice Cream Ltd, and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 December                                          (Case C-552/03 P)
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Georgios Zavvos and Wouter Wils, of its Legal
Service.                                                                                (2004/C 59/23)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 October 2003
—      declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations             by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
       and administrative provisions necessary to comply with              European Communities in case T-65/98 (1) between Van den
       Directives:                                                         Bergh Foods Ltd, formerly HB Ice Cream Ltd, and the


title: Case T-762/15: Action brought on 31 December 2015 — Sony and Sony Electronics v Commission

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/47

         Action brought on 31 December 2015 — Sony and Sony Electronics v Commission
   (Case T-762/15)
   (2016/C 098/62)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Sony Corporation (Tokyo, Japan), and Sony Electronics, Inc (San Diego, United States) (represented by: N. Levy and E. Kelly, Solicitors, and R. Snelders, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 21 October 2015 in Case AT.39639 — Optical Disk Drives, relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement, in so far as it relates to the applicants;

               —

               alternatively, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the fines imposed on the applicants pursuant to that decision; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in fact and in law in finding that the applicants engaged in an infringement of Article 101 TFEU by object.

                           —

                           The evidence cited against the applicants is insufficient to support the finding that the applicants participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU by object.

                           —

                           The decision’s alternative finding according to which the applicants engaged in separate infringements of Article 101 TFEU by object is unproven and infringed the applicants’ rights of defence because it is made for the first time in the decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the contested decision errs in fact and law and is based on inadequate reasoning.

                           —

                           The decision errs in double-counting revenues that were passed on by the applicants to another addressee of the decision.

                           —

                           The decision errs by failing to acknowledge the applicants’ substantially more limited conduct as compared to certain other addressees of the decision and thus by failing to apply to the applicants a lower gravity multiplier and lower additional amount and/or a mitigating circumstances discount.

                           —

                           The decision errs in imposing a deterrence multiplier.


title: Case T-480/10: Order of the General Court of 11 April 2011 — Département du Gers v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment and protection of human health — Genetically modified food and feed — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/11

         Order of the General Court of 11 April 2011 — Département du Gers v Commission
   (Case T-480/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Environment and protection of human health - Genetically modified food and feed - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 173/25
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Département du Gers (France) (represented by: S. Mabile and J.-P Mignard, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and L. Pignataro, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/426/EU of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11xGA21 (SYN-BTØ11-1xMON-ØØØ21-9) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 L 199, p. 36).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission;

               3.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Centre Region, the Picardy Region, the Départment de la Haute–Garonne, the Brittany Region, the Poitou-Charentes Region, the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur Region, the Burgundy Region, the Midi-Pyrénées Region, the Auvergne Region, the Pays de la Loire Region, the Rhône-Alpes Region, the Départment des Côtes d'Armor, the Île de France Region and the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Region.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.