title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court, Ireland, by order of that Court of 16 June 1998, in the case of Masterfoods Ltd against HB Ice Cream Ltd, and HB Ice Cream Ltd against Masterfoods Ltd trading as Mars Ireland (Case C-344/98)

text:
5.12.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 378/7
Chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Lille                 4. a mean cost per horsepower of:
(Regional Court, Lille) of 7 August 1998, which was
received at the Court Registry on 31 August 1998, for a
                                                                        295,00 French francs for the 19 and 20 fiscal CV
preliminary ruling in the case of Philippe Anssens v.
                                                                        band,
Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Nord on the following
                                                                        401,80 French francs for the 21 and 22 CV band,
question:
                                                                        541,10 French francs for the 23 CV and over band,
Considering that, as Community law stands at present, the
Member States remain free to subject products such as                   whereas the highest cost per fiscal horsepower is
cars to a system of road tax the amount of which                        202,20 French francs for the 15Ð16 CV band;
increases progressively according to an objective criterion
such as cylinder capacity, provided that that system of             5. successive differentials expressed as percentages of the
taxation is free from any discriminatory or protective                  tax compared to the basic tax (260 French francs):
effect, may the tax system established by the French
legislature be regarded as corresponding to the above
criteria of objectivity and non-discrimination, that tax                735 % for the 19 and 20 CV band compared to the 17
system including:                                                       and 18 CV band,
                                                                        1 111 % for the 21 and 22 CV band compared to the
                                                                        19 and 20 CV band,
1. successive differentials between one band and the next,              1 666 % for the 23 CV and over band compared to
    taking as the basis the first band covering 2-3-4 CV                the 21 and 22 CV band,
    fiscal power value, 95-96 tax disc for the deÂpartement
    of Charente, whose amount is 206 French francs,
    namely:                                                             whereas the maximum percentage increase amounts to
                                                                        430 % and relates to the 12 to 14 CV band compared
                                                                        to the 10 and 11 CV band;
    for the 19 and 20 CV band 1 910 French francs,
    for the 21 and 22 CV band 2 888 French francs,
    for the 23 CV and over band 4 332 French francs,                6. a multiplying coefficient for each band in relation to
                                                                        the basic tax, which is 260 French francs, amounting
                                                                        to:
    whereas the maximum successive differential for the
    preceding bands covering lower fiscal power values is
    1 118 French francs;                                                22,12 for 19 and 20 CV,
                                                                        33,23 for 21 and 22 CV,
                                                                        49,89 for 23 CV and over,
2. differentials weighted by band and fiscal power value
    of:
                                                                        whereas the highest coefficient is only 14,78 and
    955 French francs for the 19 and 20 CV band,                        relates to the 17 and 18 CV band, that of the
    1 444 French francs for the 21 and 22 CV band,                      proceeding band (15Ð16 CV) being 12,05;
    4 332 French francs for the 23 CV and over band,
                                                                    it being observed that in any event French production does
    whereas the maximum weighted differential for the               not include vehicles with a fiscal horsepower greater than
    preceding bands is 373 French francs (12, 13 and 14             17 CV?
    CV fiscal values band);
3. a cost of the tax disc per fiscal horsepower of:
    302,70 French francs           corresponding     to   the
    administrative fiscal power  rating of 19 CV,                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court,
    287,60 French francs           corresponding     to   the       Ireland, by order of that Court of 16 June 1998, in the
    administrative fiscal power  rating of 20 CV,                   case of Masterfoods Ltd against HB Ice Cream Ltd, and
    411,40 French francs           corresponding     to   the       HB Ice Cream Ltd against Masterfoods Ltd trading as
    administrative fiscal power  rating of 21 CV,                                           Mars Ireland
    392,70 French francs           corresponding     to   the                            (Case C-344/98)
    administrative fiscal power  rating of 22 CV,
                                                                                (98/C 378/14)
    564,00 French francs           corresponding     to   the
    administrative fiscal power  rating of 23 CV,
    540,30 French francs           corresponding     to   the       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    administrative fiscal power  rating of 24 CV,                   European Communities by an order of the Supreme Court,
    518,90 French francs           corresponding     to   the       Ireland, of 16 June 1998, which was received at the Court
    administrative fiscal power  rating of 25 CV,                   Registry on 21 September 1998, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                    in the case of Masterfoods Ltd against HB Ice Cream Ltd,
    whereas the highest cost per fiscal horsepower is 226           and HB Ice Cream Ltd against Masterfoods Ltd trading as
    French francs for a vehicle of 17 CV power rating;              Mars Ireland, on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 378/8               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.12.98
1. In the light of the Judgment and Orders of the High              Appeal brought on 7 October 1998 by Ca' Pasta Srl
     Court of Ireland dated 28th May 1992 the decision of           against the order made on 16 July 1998 by the Third
     the Commission of the European Communities dated               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
     11th March 1998 (1) and the applications by Van Den            Communities in Case T-274/97 between Ca' Pasta Srl and
     Bergh Foods Limited pursuant to Articles 173, 185                       Commission of the European Communities
     and 186 of the Treaty establishing the European
                                                                                (Case C-359/98 P)
     Economic Community (EC Treaty') to annul and
     suspend the latter decision:                                                           (98/C 378/15)
     (a) Does the obligation of sincere cooperation with
         the Commission as expounded by the Court of                An appeal against the order made on 16 July 1998 by the
         Justice require the Supreme Court to stay the              Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
         instant proceedings pending the disposal of the            European Communities in Case T-274/97 between Ca'
         appeal to the Court of First Instance against the          Pasta Srl and Commission of the European Communities
         aforesaid decision of the Commission and any               was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
         subsequent appeal to the Court of Justice?                 Communities on 7 October 1998 by Ca' Pasta Srl, whose
                                                                    registered office is in Padua (Italy), represented by Paolo
                                                                    Piva, of the Venice Bar, and Guy Arendt, of the
     (b) Does a decision of the Commission which is                 Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
         addressed to an individual party (and which is the         Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 7 Val Ste Croix.
         subject of an application for annulment and
         suspension by that party) declaring such party's
         freezer cabinet agreement to be contrary to                The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should: set
         Article 85(1) and/or Article 86 of the EC Treaty           aside as unlawful the order of the Court of First Instance,
         thereby prevent such party from seeking to uphold          Third Chamber, of 16 July 1998 and in consequence annul
         a contrary Judgment of the national Court in that          the measure complained of in the application at first
         party's favour on the same or similar issues under         instance.
         Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty where that
         decision of the national court is appealed to the
         national Court of final appeal?
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Questions 2 and 3 only arise in the event of a negative
                                                                    1. Breach of general principles relating to proceedings
answer to question 1(a)
                                                                        brought against decisions under Article 173 of the EC
                                                                        Treaty. Failure to observe the rule of law. Infringement
                                                                        of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 (1) and
2. Having regard to the legal and economic context of                   Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1116/88 (2) of
     the cabinet agreements at issue in the market for                  20 April 1988 (laying down detailed rules for the
     single-wrapped items of impulse ice cream does the                 application of decisions granting aid for projects
     practice whereby a manufacturer and/or supplier of ice             concerning Community measures to improve and
     cream provides a freezer to a retailer at no direct                adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector
     charge Ð or otherwise induces the retailer to accept               and in structural works in coastal waters) and of
     the freezer Ð subject to the condition that the retailer           Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (3) of
     stock no ice cream in such freezer other than that                 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for
     supplied by the said manufacturer and/or supplier                  implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as
     constitute an infringement of the provisions of                    regards coordination of the activities of the Different
     Article 85(1) and/or Article 86 of the EC Treaty?                  Structural Funds between themselves and with the
                                                                        operations of the European Investment Bank and the
                                                                        other existing financial instruments.
3. Are freezer exclusivity agreements protected from
     challenge under Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty
     by reason of the provisions of Article 222 of the EC           2. Breach of the obligation to state reasons which is laid
     Treaty?                                                            down in Article 33 of the EC Statute of the Court of
                                                                        Justice and is also referred to in Article 46 of that
                                                                        Statute. The order is illogical and contradictory.
(1) Commission Decision of 11 March 1998, relating to a                 Breach of the rights of the defence.
    proceeding under Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (Case
    Nos IV/34.073, IV/34.395 and IV/35.436 Van den Bergh
    Foods Limited) (notified under document number C(1998)          (1) OJ L 376, 31.12.1986, p. 7.
    292) (Only the English text is authentic) (98/531/EC) (OJ       (2) OJ L 112, 30.4.1988, p. 1.
    L 246, 4.9.1998, p. 1).                                         (3) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988, p. 1.


title: Case T-506/13: Action brought on 20 September 2013 — Urb Rulmenti Suceava v OHIM — Adiguzel (URB)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/17

         Action brought on 20 September 2013 — Urb Rulmenti Suceava v OHIM — Adiguzel (URB)
   (Case T-506/13)
   2013/C 352/32
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA (Suceava, Romania) (represented by: I. Burdusel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harun Adiguzel (Diosd, Hungary)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 July 2013 given in Case R 1309/2012-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of present proceedings; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs incurred during the proceedings before the OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘URB’ for goods in Classes 6 and 7 — Community trade mark registration No 7 380 009

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

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(b) CTMR and relative grounds for invalidity under Article 8(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) CTMR

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 52(1)(b), 53(1)(a) and 72 CTMR.


title: Case C-50/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance (First Chamber), Paris, by judgment of that court of 12 January 1999 in the case of Jean-Marie Podesta v. Caisse de Retraite par répartition des Ingénieurs Cadres & Assimilés (CRICA), Association Générale des Institutions de Retraite des Cadres (AGIRC), Union Interprofessionnelle de Retraite de l'Industrie et du Commerce (UIRIC), Caisse Générale Interprofessionnelle de Retraite pour Salariés (CGIS), Association des Régimes de Retraite Complémentaire (ARRCO)

text:
10.4.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 100/15
Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-AdeÂlaïde,                the case of Jean-Marie Podesta v. Caisse de Retraite par
against the order made on 8 December 1998 by the                       reÂpartition des IngeÂnieurs Cadres & AssimileÂs (CRICA),
Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of                  Association GeÂneÂrale des Institutions de Retraite des
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-38/               Cadres (AGIRC), Union Interprofessionnelle de Retraite
98 Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB), Francesco                de l'Industrie et du Commerce (UIRIC), Caisse GeÂneÂrale
Coccia and Vincenzo Di Giovine v. Council of the                       Interprofessionnelle de Retraite pour SalarieÂs (CGIS),
European Union.                                                        Association des ReÂgimes de Retraite CompleÂmentaire
                                                                       (ARRCO) on the following question:
The appellants claim that the Court should set aside the               Is Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome, which asserts the
Court of First Instance's order of 8 December 1998 in                  principle of equal pay for men and women, applicable to
Case T-39/98 by declaring the application to be admissible             the supplementary retirement pension schemes of AGIR
and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a           and ARRCO and does it prohibit them from
decision on the substance.                                             discriminating between men and women in respect of the
                                                                       age at which they are entitled to a survivor's pension
                                                                       following the death of their spouse?
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
The legal effects of the contested regulation (1) are direct
inasmuch as its operative provision does not require any
subsequent measure of implementation by a Community
institution or a national authority.                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
                                                                       Amministrativo per la Basilicata (Administrative Tribunal
                                                                       of the Basilicata region) by order of that court of
That provision adversely affects the appellants                        22 October 1998, in the case of Massimo Triumbari v.
individually' and in a manner which distinguishes them                Questore della provincia di Potenza (Chief of Police of the
from any other producer.                                               province of Potenza) and the Minister of Finance and the
                                                                                Minister of the Interior
                                                                                (Case C-51/99)
It follows      that   the   application   must     be  declared                              (1999/C 100/28)
admissible.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 of 15 December 1997             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    authorising Portugal to grand aid to sugar beet producers and      European Communities by order of 22 October 1998,
    abolishing all State aid from the 2001/2002 marketing year         which was received at the Court Registry on 16 February
    (OJ L 353, 24.12.1997, p. 3).                                      1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Massimo
                                                                       Triumbari v. Questore della provincia di Potenza and the
                                                                       Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Interior on the
                                                                       following questions:
                                                                       Do the Treaty provisions on the provision of services
                                                                       preclude rules such as the Italian betting legislation in
                                                                       view of the social policy concerns and of the concern to
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de                prevent fraud that justify it?
Grande Instance (First Chamber), Paris, by judgment of
that court of 12 January 1999 in the case of Jean-Marie
Podesta v. Caisse de Retraite par reÂpartition des IngeÂnieurs
Cadres & AssimileÂs (CRICA), Association GeÂneÂrale des
Institutions de Retraite des Cadres (AGIRC), Union
Interprofessionnelle de Retraite de l'Industrie et du
Commerce (UIRIC), Caisse GeÂneÂrale Interprofessionnelle               References for preliminary rulings from the Cour du
de Retraite pour SalarieÂs (CGIS), Association des ReÂgimes            Travail de LieÁge (13th Chamber) by judgments of that
            de Retraite CompleÂmentaire (ARRCO)                        court of 2 February 1999 in the cases of Office National
                                                                       des Pensions v. Gioconda Camarotto and Office National
                         (Case C-50/99)
                                                                                des Pensions v. Giuseppina Vignone
                        (1999/C 100/27)                                                (Case C-52/99 and C-53/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 100/29)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Grande Instance (Regional Court) (First Chamber), Paris,               European Communities by judgments of the 13th
of 12 January 1999, which was received at the Court                    Chamber of the Cour du Travail (Higher Labour Court),
Registry on 16 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in              LieÁge, of 2 February 1999, which were received at the


title: Case T-358/00: Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrysler AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs)

text:
27.1.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 28/29
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the            —     Set aside the decision of 12 September 2000 by the Third
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                  Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
      Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2000 in appeal                       the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) in Case
      No R 477/1999-3;                                                        R 569/1999-3;
—     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market         —     Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
      (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.                             (Trademarks and Designs) to pay the costs of the present
                                                                              proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The trade mark con-           Verbal mark ‘CARCARD’ — appli-
cerned:                       cation No 115 014
                                                                        Trade mark concerned:         Verbal trade mark ‘TRUCKCARD’,
                                                                                Application No 113 274
Goods or services con-        Goods and services in Classes 9,
cerned:                       36, 37, 38, 39, 42 (including
                              data media for vehicles, leasing of       Goods or service:             Goods and services in Classes 9,
                              motor vehicles and accounting in                                        36, 37, 38, 39, 42 (inter alia, data
                              that regard, arranging the pro-                                         carrier for vehicle data, leasing
                              vision of services in the field of                                      of motor vehicles and calculation
                              traffic and transport logistics,                                        thereof, provision of services in
                              emergency assistance, repairs and                                       the areas of traffic and transport
                              towing-away services)                                                   logistics, emergency, repair and
                                                                                vehicle-removal services)
Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of           examiner                                  Decision        challenged    Refusal of registration by the
Appeal:                                                                 before the Board of           examiner
                                                                        Appeal:
Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94           Pleas in law:                 — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                              — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94                                         — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrys-
ler AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the                      Action brought on 29 November 2000 by Alsace Inter-
          Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs)                      national Car Service (A.I.C.S.) against European Parlia-
                                                                                ment
                        (Case T-358/00)
                                                                                (Case T-365/00)
                         (2001/C 28/53)
                                                                                (2001/C 28/54)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trademarks and Designs) was brought before the                  An action against the European Parliament was brought before
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                  the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrysler AG, Stuttgart (Germ-               29 November 2000 by Alsace International Car Service
any), represented by Stefan Völker, Rechtsanwalt, of Gleiss             (A.I.C.S.), whose registered office is at Strasbourg (France),
Lutz Hootz Hirsch, Stuttgart, Germany.                                  represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar.


title: Case T-338/00: Action brought on 7 November 2000 by Carmelo Morello against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
23.12.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 372/17
—     order the Commission to pay FRF 1 604 735 241                      Action brought on 7 November 2000 by Carmelo Morello
      (EUR 24 463 867) by way of damages for the harm                      against the Commission of the European Communities
      suffered by Rougemarine as a result of such discrimi-
      nation;
                                                                                (Case T-338/00)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                     (2000/C 372/34)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant in the present case is an audiovisual production           European Communities on 7 November 2000 by Carmelo
undertaking belonging to the RCS in Paris whose managing                 Morello, residing in Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon
director and majority shareholder is a Tunisian national.                and Pierre Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The action seeks the annulment of the decision of the
Commission of 5 September 2000 which refused the applicant               —     annul the Commission’s decision appointing another
the financial support which it had requested in the context of                 official to post COM/113/99 IV/F/2 ‘Motor vehicles
the MEDIA II programme, the objective of which is, among                       and other means of transport’, corresponding to a
others, to encourage the development and distribution of                       grade A5/A4 post of Head of Unit;
European audiovisual works pursuant to Council Decision
95/563/EC of 10 July 1995 on the implementation of a
programme encouraging the development and distribution of                —     annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the application
European audiovisual works (Media II — Development and                         of the applicant for that post;
distribution) (1996-2000). (1)
                                                                         —     award the sum of 120 000 euro, subject to increase or
                                                                               decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
In support of its claims, the applicant undertaking states, first,             compensation for the non-material damage suffered by
that the contested decision, which is based on the fourth                      the applicant as a result of the irregular or incomplete
paragraph of Article 3 of Council Decision 95/563/EC, cited                    information gathered by the defendant in relation to the
above, is unlawful, in that it discriminates between European                  applicant’s personal file and the state of uncertainty and
audiovisual production undertakings on the basis of the                        worry in which he has been placed with regard to his
nationality of its managing directors, which is contrary to                    future career;
Article 12 of the EC Treaty. In fact, according to the fourth
paragraph of Article 3, the businesses benefitting from the              —     award the sum of 25 000 euro, subject to increase or
programme must be in the possession and continue to be in                      decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
the possession, whether directly, or by majority participation,                compensation for the material damage suffered by the
of the Member States and/or of nationals from Member States.                   applicant as a result of his having been rejected as a
That provision is also contrary to the principle of equality, as               candidate for the post to be filled and of his having thus
laid down in the case-law of the Court of Justice. The applicant               lost an opportunity of promotion;
considers, in that respect, that the differentiation criterion used
is not objectively justified.
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
Additionally, the applicant undertaking requests, on the basis
of Article 241 of the Treaty, that Council Decision 95/563/EC            Pleas in law and main arguments
be declared unlawful.
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                                                                         Cases T-135/00 and T-136/00 Morello v Commission (1).
(1) OJ 1995 L 321, p. 25.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 211, 22.7.2000, pp. 23 and 24.


title: Case T-293/15: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2015 — Banimmo v Commission (Public service contracts — Withdrawal of the contested measure — No need to adjudicate on the action)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/30

         Order of the General Court of 7 July 2015 — Banimmo v Commission
   (Case T-293/15) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Withdrawal of the contested measure - No need to adjudicate on the action))
   (2015/C 320/47)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Banimmo SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: V. Ost and M. Vanderstraeten, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of 9 April 2015 by which the Commission rejected the offer which Banimmo had submitted following a property prospecting notice to meet the office space requirements of the Commission in Brussels (OJ 2014/S 130-231896).

      Operative part of the order

               1)

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

               2)

               There is no longer any need to rule on Banimmo’s application that the present action be adjudicated under an expedited procedure.

               3)

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Banimmo, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-gerichtshof by order of that court of 12 December 1996 in the case of Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. Pathe Communications Corporation (Case C-39/97)

text:
22 . 3 . 97              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 94/ 11
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes                               by that person, thus simply being paid in lieu of a
gerichtshof by order of that court of 12 December 1996                            benefit in kind which could in principle have been
in     the   case    of  Canon     Kabushiki     Kaisha     v. Pathe              provided by the Fund; or
                   Communications Corporation
                           (Case C-39/97)                                  ( ac ) only such benefits in the form of money as are not
                                                                                earmarked for a specific purpose ?
                             ( 97/C 94/20 )
                                                                           Are the benefits listed below benefits in kind within the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                         meaning of Article 28 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 :
the European Communities by an order of the
Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court of Justice ) of                          ( ba ) only benefits in kind provided by the fund without
12 December 1996, which was received at the Court                                 expenditure by the insured person, or albeit with his
Registry on 28 January 1997, for a preliminary ruling in                          participation in the costs but otherwise financed by
the      case   of     Canon      Kabushiki     Kaisha     v.  Pathe
                                                                                the Fund; or
Communications Corporation on the following question :
                                                                           ( bb) in addition to the direct benefits in kind mentioned at
May account be taken, when assessing the similarity of                            ( ba ), and in lieu of a benefit in kind which could in
the goods or services covered by the two marks, of the                            principle have been provided by the fund, but in the
distinctive character, in particular the reputation of the                        individual case was obtained by the insured person
mark with earlier priority ( on the date which determines                         initially at his own expense, also benefits provided in
the seniority of the later mark ), in particular in such a                        the form of money by way of a complete or partial
way that likelihood of confusion within the meaning of                            refund of those costs; or also
Article 4 ( 1 ) ( b ) of Directive 89/104/EEC ( 1 ) must be taken
to exist even if participants in trade attribute the goods
and/or services to different origins ?                                     ( be ) such cash benefits as are not linked to any specific
                                                                                expenditure incurred by the insured person and are
                                                                                refundable in whole or in part by the fund, but are
(') First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
                                                                                granted to him instead of a benefit in kind which
     approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
     marks ( OJ No L 40, 12 . 2 . 1992, p. 1 ).                                   could also have been possible, as a cash benefit, if the
                                                                                insured person so chooses, completely irrespective of
                                                                                whether and, if so, in what amount the insured
                                                                                person has incurred or is incurring expenditure ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht,
Hamburg, by order of that court of 28 November 1996
in the case of Peter Michael Jordy against 1 . Techniker
Krankenkasse and 2. Techniker Krankenkasse Pflege                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep,
                             versicherung                                  Antwerp, by judgment of that court of 27 January 1997 in
                                                                               the case of the Belgian State v. Foodie BV and Others
                           (Case C-40/97)
                                                                                ( Case C-41/97)
                               97/C 94/21
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/22 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Sozialgericht                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( Social Court), Hamburg, of 28 November 1996 , which                      European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Be
was received at the Court Registry on 28 January 1997,                     roep ( Court of Appeal ), Antwerp, of 27 January 1997,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Peter Michael Jordy                which was received at the Court Registry on 30 January
against 1 . Techniker Krankenkasse and 2 . Techniker Kran                 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of the Belgian
kenkasse Pflegeversicherung on the following questions:                    State v. Foodie BV and Others on the following questions:
Are the benefits listed below cash benefits within the                     1 . Does 'Kashkaval ' in Regulation ( EEC ) No 1767/82 (')
meaning of Article 28 of Regulation (EEC ) No 1408/71 :                          refer solely to cheese made from sheep's milk ?
 ( aa ) any benefits provided to the insured person by the                 2 . Does an IMA 1 certificate issued pursuant to
        sickness assurance fund or care assurance fund in the                    Regulation ( EEC ) No 1767/82 but filled out in a
        form of money ( cash, remittance of a money demand,                      manner contrary to the instructions set out in the
        cheque, money transfer, etc .), irrespective of the                      Annexes to that Regulation satisfy the requirements of
        reason for or purpose of that benefit; or                                Article 2 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1767/82, and, if
                                                                                not, does this result in forfeiture of entitlement to a
 ( ab ) benefits so provided in money form, even if they are                     reduced import tariff?
        to serve a specific purpose, provided that they do not
        constitute complete or partial (contributory or lump              (') OJ No L 196 , 5 . 7. 1982 , p . 1 .
        sum ) refunds of certain expenditure specifically
        incurred by the insured person for services obtained


title: Case T-226/00: Action brought on 28 August 2000 by Nan Ya Plastics Corporation against the Council of the European Union

text:
4.11.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 316/33
European Communities on 25 August 2000 by Archer Daniels                 Action brought on 28 August 2000 by Nan Ya Plastics
Midland Company and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients                    Corporation against the Council of the European Union
Limited, represented by Lynda Martin Alegi and Edward
William Batchelor of Baker and McKenzie, London.                                                 (Case T-226/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/63)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 7 June                                (Language of the case: English)
       2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of
       the EEC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case          An action against the Council of the European Union was
       COMP/36.545/F3-Amino Acids) insofar as it pertains to             brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
       ADM;                                                              Communities on 28 August 2000 by Nan Ya Plastics Corpor-
                                                                         ation, represented by Philippe De Baere, of Van Bael & Bellis,
                                                                         Brussels.
—      in the alternative, the modification of Article 2 of the
       decision as it pertains to ADM, so as to annul or
       substantially reduce the fine imposed on ADM therein;             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EC)
—      order the Commission to pay all the costs of the                        No 978/2000 to the extent that they affect the applicant;
       proceedings; and                                                        and
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
—      order the Commission to reimburse ADM for any
       expenses incurred in providing security for payment of
       the fine.                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The contested measure in the present case is Council Regu-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          lation (EC) No 978/2000 imposing a definitive countervailing
                                                                         duty on imports of polyester originating in Australia, Indonesia
                                                                         and Taiwan and collecting definitively the provisional duty
                                                                         imposed (1).
The grounds and main arguments are similar to those invoked
in cases T-220/00 et T-223/00 Cheil Jedang Corporation/Com-
mission and T-223/00 Kyowa Hakko Kogyo and Kyowa Hakko                   The product concerned is synthetic staple fibres of polyester,
Europe/Commission.                                                       not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning,
                                                                         which is currently classified under CN code 5503 20 00.
It is submitted, in particular, that the Commission:                     The applicant, a company incorporated in Taiwan producing
                                                                         a wide range of artificial fibres, plastics and petrochemical
                                                                         intermediates, puts forward the following submissions:
—      Has incorrectly characterised the infringement as a very
       serious infringement likely to jeopardise the proper              —     The Council unlawfully countervailed the import duty
       functioning of the single market.                                       exemption for raw materials since this scheme could
                                                                               not lawfully have been included in the scope of the
                                                                               investigation.
—      Failed to take into account the lack of actual impact of
       the Cartel in assessing the fine.                                 —     The Council’s conclusion that the benefits obtained under
                                                                               the tax credit for investment in important undertakings,
—      Improperly assesses that the applicants implemented the                 the import-duty exemption for machinery and anti-
       agreements.                                                             pollution equipment, the import-duty exemptions for raw
                                                                               materials and the tax credit for purchase of automation
                                                                               equipment are countervalable is based on an erroneus
—      Improperly assesses the applicants to be sector leaders                 application of Article 3(2) of the basic anti-subsidy regu-
       and increased the fine excessively in respect of leadership.            lation and is made in the absence of positive evidence
                                                                               and thereby infringes Articles 3(1), 4(1) and 3(5) of that
                                                                               regulation.
—      Has infringed essential procedural requirements.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 113 of 12.5.2000, p. 1.


title: Case C-268/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 28 May 2010 — Marc Collard v État belge — SPF Finances

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 28 May 2010 — Marc Collard v État belge — SPF Finances
   (Case C-268/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/37
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Namur

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Marc Collard

      Defendant: État belge — SPF Finances

      Intervener: État belge — SPF Defence

      Questions referred

         First question:

   ‘Do the following provisions of European Union law:

               —

               Article 6 of the Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 amending the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, in force since 1 December 2009, under which: “The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on [12] December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties. …”;

               —

               Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union (OJ C 364 of 18 December 2000), under which “Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment. A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities”;

         interpreted in accordance with the main principles on which the European Union is based, as reiterated in the preamble to the Treaty of Lisbon,
   preclude a Member State, in this case Belgium, from allowing the manufacture, importation, promotion and sale of manufactured smoking tobacco to continue within its territory, even though that same State officially recognises that those products are seriously harmful to the health of those who use them and identified as being the cause of numerous disabling diseases and numerous premature deaths, a consideration which should logically justify their prohibition?’

         Second question:

   ‘Do the following provisions of European Union law:

               1.

               Article 6 of the Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 amending the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, in force since 1 December 2009, under which: “The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on [12] December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties. …”; and

               2.

               Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) (OJ C 364 of 18 December 2000), under which “Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices. A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities”;

         interpreted in accordance with the main principles on which the European Union is based, as reiterated in the preamble to the Treaty of Lisbon,
   preclude the following provisions of Belgian law:

               the Loi générale sur les douanes et accises coordonnée par arrêté royal du 18 juillet 1977 (General Law on Customs and Excise coordinated by Royal Decree of 18 July 1977) (Moniteur belge of 21 September 1977), confirmed by the Law of 6 July 1978, Article 1 (Moniteur belge of 12 August 1978);

               the Loi du 10 juin 1997 relative au régime général, à la détention, à la circulation et aux contrôles des produits soumis à accise (Law of 10 June 1997 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (Moniteur belge of 1 August 1997);

               the Loi du 3 avril 1997 relative au régime fiscal des tabacs manufacturés (Law of 3 April 1997 on the tax arrangements for manufactured tobacco) (Moniteur belge of 1 August 1997), amended by the Law of 26 November 2006 (Moniteur belge of 8 December 2006);

         from authorising the Belgian State to regard manufactured smoking tobacco as a taxable base for excise duty, even though:

               On the one hand, that State officially recognises that those products are seriously detrimental to the health of those who use them and identified as being the cause of numerous disabling diseases and numerous premature deaths, which should logically justify their disappearance;

               On the other hand, by proceeding in that way, the State itself impedes the adoption of measures capable of actually bringing about that disappearance by attaching more importance to tax yield than to any genuinely dissuasive effect?’

      (1)  OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1.


title: Case T-112/17: Action brought on 17 February 2017 — Pelikan v EUIPO — NBA Properties (NEW ORLEANS PELICANS)

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/25

         Action brought on 17 February 2017 — Pelikan v EUIPO — NBA Properties (NEW ORLEANS PELICANS)
   (Case T-112/17)
   (2017/C 129/38)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Hannover, Germany) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: NBA Properties, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in black and white containing the word elements ‘NEW ORLEANS PELICANS’ — Application for registration No 11 518 487

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2016 in Case R 408/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


5.4.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 83/17
        Removal from the register of Case C-444/01 ( 1)                from the register of Case C-215/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling by the Sozialgericht Stuttgart): Karin Müller v Postbeam-
                         (2003/C 83/35)                                tenkrankenkasse.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.
By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-444/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Stadt Villingen-
Schwenningen v Ophilia Akosua Owusu.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-241/02 P ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 84 of 06.4.2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 83/39)
                                                                       By order of 6 January 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
        Removal from the register of Case   C-61/02 (1)
                                                                       from the register of Case C-241/02 P: International and
                                                                       European Public Services Organisation (IPSO) v European
                         (2003/C 83/36)
                                                                       Central Bank.
By order of 19 December 2002 the President of the Court of             (1 ) OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-61/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria.
( 1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-337/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/40)
        Removal from the register of Case C-191/02 ( 1)                By order of 4 February 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                         (2003/C 83/37)                                from the register of Case C-337/02: Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities v Italian Republic.
By order of 16 December 2002 the President of the Court of             (1 ) OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-191/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
( 1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-368/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/41)
        Removal from the register of Case C-215/02 ( 1)
                                                                       By order of 23 January 2003 the President of the Court of
                         (2003/C 83/38)                                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-368/02: Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
By order of 16 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                (1 ) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 6 October 1998 in Case C-79/98: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 94/69/EC)

text:
5.12.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 378/1
                                                                  I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  D. Ruiz-Jarobo Colomer, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 October 1998, in
                                                                      which it:
                      of 1 October 1998
 in Case C-279/95 P: Langnese-Iglo GmbH v. Commission                 1. Dismisses the appeal by Langnese-Iglo GmbH;
     of the European Communities, supported by Mars
                           GmbH (1)                                   2. Dismisses the cross-appeal by the Commission of the
(Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð                            European Communities;
Exclusive purchasing agreements for ice-cream Ð Comfort
letter Ð Prohibition of concluding exclusive agreements in            3. Orders Langnese-Iglo GmbH, the Commission of the
                          the future)                                      European Communities and Mars GmbH to bear their
                        (98/C 378/01)                                      own costs.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 286, 28.10.1995.
               (Language of the case: German)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-279/95 P: Langnese-Iglo GmbH, a company
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
incorporated under German law, established in Hamburg
(Germany), represented by Martin Heidenhain, Bernhard                                       of 6 October 1998
M. Maassen and Horst Satzky, Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt
                                                                             in Case C-79/98: Commission of the European
am Main, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                                Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)
the chambers of Jean Hoss, 2 Place Winston Churchill Ð
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance            (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended                                      Directive 94/69/EC)
Composition) of 8 June 1995 in Case T-7/93 Langnese
                                                                                (98/C 378/02)
Iglo v. Commission [1995] ECR II-1533, seeking to have
that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                                 (Language of the case: French)
Wouter Wils, assisted by Alexander Böhlke), supported by
Mars GmbH, a company incorporated under German law,
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
established in Viersen (Germany), represented by Jochim
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, and by John E. Pheasant,
Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Michel Molitor, 55 Boulevard de la PeÂtrusse              In Case C-79/98: Commission of the European
Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,                 Communities (Agent: Götz zur Hausen) v. Kingdom of
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de              Belgium (Agent: Anni Snoecx) Ð application for a
Almeida, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges;                   declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
 ---pagebreak--- C 378/2                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.12.98
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with               measures forthwith, the Portuguese Republic has failed to
Commission Directive 94/69/EC of 19 December 1994                    fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of
adapting to technical progress for the twenty-first time             Article 189 of the EC Treaty and the combined provisions
Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of                 of Article 13 of that directive, Article 395 of and Annex
laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to          XXXVI to the Act concerning the conditions of accession
the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous             of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and
substances (OJ L 381, 31.12.1994, p. 1), the Kingdom of              the adjustments to the Treaties (OJ L 302, 15.11.1985,
Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that              p. 23), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its
directive Ð the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C.               obligations under that directive, Ð the Court (Sixth
Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. C.                Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the
Moitinho de Almeida and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; P.                 Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini, H. Ragnemalm and
LeÂger, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a           R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-
judgment on 6 October 1998, in which it:                             General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                     15 October 1998, in which it:
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply               1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     with Commission Directive 94/69/EC of 19 December                    period the laws, regulations and administrative
     1994 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-                  provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
     first time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the                       79/869/EEC of 9 October 1979 concerning the
     approximation of laws, regulations and administrative                methods of measurement and frequencies of sampling
     provisions relating to the classification, packaging and             and analysis of surface water intended for the
     labelling of dangerous substances, the Kingdom of                    abstraction of drinking water in the Member States,
     Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the               the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its
     first paragraph of Article 2 thereof;                                obligations under the combined provisions of that
                                                                          directive and of the Act concerning the conditions of
                                                                          accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                        Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties;
(1) OJ C 166, 30.5.1998.
                                                                     2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Sixth Chamber)
                      of 15 October 1998                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
       in Case C-229/97: Commission of the European                                         (Fifth Chamber)
            Communities v. Portuguese Republic (1)
                                                                                of 15 October 1998
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                                                                            in Case C-268/97: Commission of the European
       Failure to transpose fully Directive 76/869/EEC)
                                                                                Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                         (98/C 378/03)
                                                                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                                                                                Directive 86/609/EEC)
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                (98/C 378/04)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                       (Language of the case: French)
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
In Case C-229/97: Commission of the European                                   published in the European Court Reports)
Communities (Agent: Francisco de Sousa Fialho) v.
Portuguese Republic (Agents: Luis Fernandes and JoaÄo
Lopes Fernandes) Ð Application for a declaration that, by            In Case C-268/97: Commission of the European
failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws,              Communities (Agents: Hendrik van Lier and Lena Ström)
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to               v. Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder) Ð
comply with Council Directive 79/869/EEC of 9 October                Application for a declaration that, by not adopting within
1979 concerning the methods of measurement and                       the prescribed period all the measures necessary to comply
frequencies of sampling and analysis of surface water                with Articles 14 and 22 of Council Directive 86/609/EEC
intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the                of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws,
Member States (OJ L 271, 29.10.1979, p. 44), and, in the             regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
alternative, by not informing the Commission of those                States relating to the protection of animals used for


title: Case F-37/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 December 2015 — Macchia v Commission

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/79

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 December 2015 — Macchia v Commission
   (Case F-37/13) (1)

   (2016/C 027/102)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20/7/2013, p. 59.


title: Case F-65/15: Action brought on 23 April 2015 — ZZ v OHIM

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/29

         Action brought on 23 April 2015 — ZZ v OHIM
   (Case F-65/15)
   (2015/C 221/40)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

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

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Action for annulment of the defendant’s decision of 4 June 2014 to terminate the applicant’s contract of employment pursuant to a clause in that contract of employment.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               set aside the determination of OHIM, which was communicated by letter from OHIM dated 4 June 2014, to terminate the applicant’s contract as a temporary member of staff at OHIM with a notice period of six months, which began upon expiry of the validity of the reserve list of competition EPSO OHIM/AST/02/13;

               —

               order OHIM to pay to the applicant damages of an appropriate amount at the discretion of the Tribunal for the non-material damage arising from the decision of OHIM referred to in paragraph 1 above;

               —

               in the event that the date of the judgment or the definitive conclusion of the present proceedings is after the termination of the applicant’s contract of employment by OHIM: order OHIM to reinstate the applicant with full restoration of her career advancements which she would have achieved upon continuous further employment and order OHIM to compensate the applicant fully for the material damage suffered by her, in particular by paying all outstanding salary and all other material damage incurred by the applicant as a result of OHIM’s unlawful conduct (after deduction of unemployment benefit received);

               —

               in the alternative, in the event that, in the present situation, for legal or practical reasons the applicant is not reinstated or re-employed under the same conditions as hitherto, order OHIM to pay the applicant compensation for the material damage caused to the applicant by the unlawful termination of her employment, corresponding to the difference between her actual lifetime earnings and the lifetime earnings the applicant would have achieved if the contract had remained in force, taking into account pension benefits and other entitlements;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.


title: Case T-73/13: Action brought on 11 February 2013 — InterMune UK and Others v EMA

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/38

         Action brought on 11 February 2013 — InterMune UK and Others v EMA
   (Case T-73/13)
   2013/C 114/60
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: InterMune UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom); InterMune, Inc. (Brisbane, United States); and InterMune International AG (Muttenz, Switzerland) (represented by: I. Dodds-Smith and A. Williams, Solicitors, T. de la Mare, Barrister, and F. Campbell, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision communicated by the defendant to the applicants on 15 January 2013 to release certain information under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), insofar as that decision concerns the release of information previously submitted by the applicants to the defendant which is not already in the public domain; and

               —

               Order the defendant 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 three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has failed properly to engage in the balancing exercise which it is required to conduct under Article 4.2 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, in the sense of assessing whether there is, in fact, any public interest in disclosure of the disputed information which overrides the need to protect the applicants’ commercial interests from the substantial damage which would be caused by such disclosure.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has failed properly to take into account other important factors relevant to the balancing exercise required by law, including:

                           —

                           the requirements of specific EU legislation (notably Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (2), in particular its Article 14.11);

                           —

                           the interpretative obligations placed upon all EU institutions when construing EU legislation by Article 39.3 of TRIPS (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights);

                           —

                           the fundamental rights to property and to privacy, as protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, assessed in light of a careful consideration of all relevant facts so as to enable a fact-sensitive proportionality analysis; and

                           —

                           the duty to follow its own published guidance and policies on the importance of protecting commercially confidential information.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that if the defendant had properly carried out the required balancing exercise, and properly considered all relevant factors, the only lawful, proportionate and/or reasonable conclusion would have been that the disputed information should not be released.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43)

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1)


title: Case F-62/13: Action brought on 26 June 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/26

         Action brought on 26 June 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-62/13)
   2013/C 352/52
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Mansullo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision to recover the sum of EUR 500 and five further sums in the amount of EUR 504.67 withheld from the applicant’s invalidity allowance for the months July to December 2012.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision, contained in the pension statement for the month of July 2012, to withhold EUR 500 from the invalidity allowance to which the applicant was entitled in respect of that month;

               —

               annul the decisions, contained in the pension statements for the months August to December 2012, to withhold EUR 504.67 from the invalidity allowance to which the applicant was entitled in respect of each of those months;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the decisions, whatever the form in which they were adopted, rejecting the complaints of 15 October 2012 and 15 January 2013 against those decisions;

               —

               annul the memorandum of 6 February 2013 together with the annex to that memorandum and a copy of a memorandum of 3 August 2012 purportedly from the Commission’s Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant the following sums: (1) EUR 500.00, together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum and annual capitalisation, with effect from 1 August 2012 until actual payment of that sum; (2) EUR 504.67, together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum and annual capitalisation, with effect from 1 September 2012 until actual payment of that sum; (3) EUR 504.67, together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum and annual capitalisation, with effect from 1 October 2012 until actual payment of that sum; (4) EUR 504.67, together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum and annual capitalisation, with effect from 1 November 2012 until actual payment of that sum; (5) EUR 504.67, together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum and annual capitalisation, with effect from 1 December 2012 until actual payment of that sum; (6) EUR 504.67, together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum and annual capitalisation, with effect from 1 January 2013 until actual payment of that sum;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 2 April 1998 in Case C-296/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal, England and Wales): The Queen v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise, ex parte EMU Tabac SARL, The Man in Black Limited and John Cunningham, intervener: Imperial Tobacco Ltd (Council Directive 92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products - Member State in which duty is payable - Purchase through an agent)

text:
C 209/2               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   4.7.98
4. Although a processing undertaking is required to repay            (EEC) No 4064/89 (Case No IV/M.308 Ð Kali + Salz/
     the amounts corresponding to the reduction in prices            MdK/Treuhand) (OJ L 186 of 21.7.1994, p. 38) in so far
     and the premium decided on pursuant to Article 4(5)             as it makes the declaration that the concentration is
     of Regulation No 727/70, as amended, the second                 compatible with the common market conditional on
     paragraph of clause 8 of the cultivation contract set           compliance with the conditions set out in point 63 of the
     out in the annex to Regulation No 4263/88 allows, in            decision, and for partial annulment of that decision in so
     such a case, the contract price to be renegotiated              far as it accepted the commitment referred to in point 65
     between the processing undertaking and the tobacco              by which Kali und Salz AG undertook to adapt the
     producers in line with the reduction in the prices and          structure of Potacan by 30 June 1994 Ð the Court,
     premium.                                                        composed of G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.
                                                                     Gulmann (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Presidents of
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.                                          Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
                                                                     P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.
                                                                     Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Judges; G. Tesauro,
                                                                     Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                     judgment on 31 March 1998, in which it:
                                                                     1. Annuls Commission Decision 94/449/EC of 14
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                         December 1993 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
                      of 31 March 1998                                   Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Case No IV/
                                                                         M.308 Ð Kali + Salz/MdK/Treuhand).
in Joined Cases C-68/94 French Republic v. Commission
of the European Communities, supported by Federal
Republic of Germany, and C-30/95: SocieÂteÂ Commerciale              2. In Case C-68/94, orders the Commission of the
des Potasses et de l'Azote (SCPA) and Entreprise MinieÁre                European Communities to pay the costs.
et Chimique (EMC), supported by French Republic v.
Commission of the European Communities, supported by
Kali und Salz GmbH and Kali und Salz Beteiligungs-                   3. In Case C-30/95, orders the Commission of the
                             AG (1)                                      European Communities to pay the costs, and Kali und
                                                                         Salz GmbH and Kali und Salz Beteiligungs-AG to bear
(Community        control    of     concentrations     between           their own costs.
        undertakings Ð Collective dominant position)
                        (98/C 209/02)                                4. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, which
                                                                         intervened in Case C-68/94, and the French Republic,
                (Language of the case: French)                           which intervened in Case C-30/95, to bear their own
                                                                         costs.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       (1) OJ C 120 of 30.4.1994.
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-68/94: French Republic (Agents: Edwige
Belliard, Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey) v.
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Berend
Jan Drijber, assisted by Jacques Bourgeois), supported by                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder and                                        of 2 April 1998
Bernd Kloke) Ð application for annulment of Commission
Decision 94/449/EC of 14 December 1993 relating to a                 in Case C-296/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
proceeding pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)                      the Court of Appeal, England and Wales): The Queen v.
No 4064/89 (Case No IV/M.308 Ð Kali + Salz/MdK/                      Commissioners of Customs and Excise, ex parte EMU
Treuhand) (OJ L 186 of 21.7.1994, p. 38) and C-30/95:                Tabac SARL, The Man in Black Limited and John
SocieÂteÂ Commerciale des Potasses et de l'Azote (SCPA)                   Cunningham, intervener: Imperial Tobacco Ltd (1)
and Entreprise MinieÁre et Chimique (EMC), represented               (Council Directive 92/12/EEC on the general
by Charles Price of the Brussels Bar, with an address for            arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong,                the holding, movement and monitoring of such products
14A Rue des Bains, supported by French Republic                      Ð Member State in which duty is payable Ð Purchase
(Agents: Edwige Belliard, Catherine de Salins and                                          through an agent)
Jean-Marc Belorgey) v. Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Berend Jan Drijber, assisted by                                          (98/C 209/03)
Jacques Bourgeois), supported by Kali und Salz GmbH
and Kali und Salz Beteiligungs-AG, represented by                                   (Language of the case: English)
Karlheinz Quack and Georg Albrechtskirchinger Ð
application for partial annulment of Article 1 of
Commission Decision 94/449/EC on 14 December 1993                    In Case C-296/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
relating to a proceeding pursuant to Council Regulation              of the EC Treaty from the Court of Appeal, England and
 ---pagebreak--- 4.7.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 209/3
Wales for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending          Philippe Sands and Mark Hoskins, Barristers, instructed
before that court between The Queen and Commissioners              by Leigh, Day & Co., Solicitors, with an address for
of Customs and Excise, ex parte EMU Tabac SARL, The                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jean-Paul
Man in Black Limited and John Cunningham; intervener:              Noesen, 18 Rue des Glacis Ð appeal against the order of
Imperial Tobacco Ltd Ð on the interpretation of Council            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general             (First Chamber) of 9 August 1995 in Case T-585/93
arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on            Greenpeace and Others v. Commission [1995] ECR
the holding, movement and monitoring of such products              II-2205, seeking to have that order set aside, the other
(OJ L 76 of 23.3.1992, p. 1), as amended by Council                party to the proceedings being Commission of the
Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992 (OJ L 390 of              European Communities (Agent: Peter Oliver), supported
31.12.1992, p. 124) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.                by Kingdom of Spain (Agents: Alberto JoseÂ Navarro
Rodríguez Iglesias, President, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet           GonzaÂlez and Gloria Calvo Díaz) Ð the Court, composed
and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini,          of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), J.-          H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers),
P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;            G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; D.                       P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                 Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;
Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 April 1998, in which          G. Cosmas, Advocate General; for the Registrar, has given
it has ruled:                                                      a judgment on 2 April 1998, in which it:
                                                                   1. Dismisses the appeal.
Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the
general arrangements for products subject to excise duty
and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such
products, as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC               2. Orders the appellants to pay the costs.
of 14 December 1992, must be interpreted as not
precluding the levying of excise duty in Member State A
on goods released for consumption in Member State B,               3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
where the goods were acquired from a company, X, for
the use of private individuals in Member State A, through          (1) OJ C 315 of 25.11.1995.
a company, Y, acting in return for payment as agent for
those individuals, and where transportation of the goods
from Member State B to Member State A was also
arranged by company Y on behalf of those individuals and
effected by a professional carrier charging for his services.
(1) OJ C 299 of 11.11.1995.                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 2 April 1998
                                                                   in Case C-367/95 P: Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities v. Chambre Syndicale Nationale des Entre-
                                                                   prises de Transport de Fonds et Valeurs (Sytraval) and
                                                                                Brink's France SARL (1)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                (Appeal Ð State aid Ð Complaint by a competitor Ð
                                                                   Commission's obligations concerning the investigation of a
                       of 2 April 1998                                complaint and the provision of reasons for rejecting it)
in Case C-321/95 P: Stichting Greenpeace Council                                           (98/C 209/05)
(Greenpeace International) and Others v. Commission of
the European Communities, supported by Kingdom of
                           Spain (1)                                              (Language of the case: French)
(Appeal Ð Natural or legal persons Ð Measures of direct
              and individual concern to them)
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                        (98/C 209/04)                                       published in the European Court Reports)
               (Language of the case: English)                     In Case C-367/95 P: Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities (Agents: Jean-Louis Dewost, Jean-Paul
                                                                   Keppenne and Michel Nolin), supported by French
                                                                   Republic (Agents: Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc
In Case C-321/95 P: Stichting Greenpeace Council                   Belorgey), Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst
(Greenpeace International) and Others, represented by              Röder and Bernd Kloke), Kingdom of Spain (Agent:


8.3.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 55/17
      Freedoms, preclude the barring of the submission of an                     Removal from the register of Case C-304/99 ( 1)
      application to participate in or a tender for a public
      contract for works, supplies or services by any person
      who has been responsible for research, testing, study or                                    (2003/C 55/31)
      development in respect of those works, supplies or
      services where that person has not been given an
      opportunity to prove that, in the circumstances of the
      case, the experience he has acquired could not distort             By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
      competition?                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-304/99 (Reference for a preliminary
2.    Would the answer to the preceding question be different if         ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): F. Apollonio & C. SpA v
      the abovementioned directives, considered in conjunction           Ministero delle Finanze.
      with the same principle, freedom and law, were interpret-
      ed as covering only private undertakings or undertakings
      which had supplied gratuitous services?                            (1 ) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
3.    Can Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992
      coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions relating to the application of Community rules
      on the procurement procedures of entities operating in
      the water, energy, transport and telecommunications
      sectors (3), and in particular Articles 1 and 2 thereof, be
      interpreted as meaning that a contracting entity may
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-305/99 ( 1)
      exclude, up to the end of the process of evaluation of
      the tenders, from participation in the procedure or
      submission of a tender, an undertaking connected to any                                     (2003/C 55/32)
      person who has been responsible for the research, testing,
      study or development in respect of the works, supplies or
      services, although when questioned in that regard by the
      contracting authority that undertaking declares that it has
      gained therefrom no unfair advantage of a nature such as           By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
      to distort the normal conditions of competition?                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-305/99 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Leglerdata SpA v Ministero
                                                                         delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ L 199 of 09.08.1993, p. 84.
( 2) OJ L 101 of 01.04.1998, p. 1.
( 3) OJ L 76 of 23.03.1992, p. 14.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
        Removal from the register of Case C-303/99 ( 1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-358/99 ( 1)
                          (2003/C 55/30)                                                          (2003/C 55/33)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of               By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-303/99 (Reference for a preliminary          from the register of Case C-358/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Markfactor SpA v Ministero          ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Tecnologie Meccaniche
delle Finanze.                                                           Avanzate Srl (TMA) v Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.                                             (1 ) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.


title: Case T-368/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 March 2007 — Verheyden v Commission (Staff case — Application to carry over annual leave — Requirements of the service — Sick leave — Protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 March 2007 — Verheyden v Commission
   (Case T-368/04) (1)

   (Staff case - Application to carry over annual leave - Requirements of the service - Sick leave - Protection of legitimate expectations)
   (2007/C 96/69)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Luc Verheyden (Angera, Italy) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)
   Re:
   Application, firstly, for annulment of the decisions of the applicant's head of unit, dated 4, 24 and 27 February 2004, relating to the applicant's application to carry over from 2003 to 2004 the days of annual leave not taken which exceeded the threshold of 12 days and for annulment of the administration's decision of 1 June 2004, received on 14 June 2004, rejecting the applicant's complaint and, secondly, for an order that the Commission pay compensation for 32 days of annual leave not used up and not paid, together with interest at 5.25 % from the date of commencement of this action and for an order for payment of damages in respect of non-material damage, detriment to his career and detriment to his reputation
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               annuls the decision of the applicant's superior of 27 February 2004 refusing to sign his application to carry over annual leave from 2003 to 2004, in so far as it refuses to grant the carrying over, in addition to the 12 days which may be carried over as of right, of eight days of annual leave referred to by the director of resources of the Joint Research Centre in an email of 11 February 2003;

               2.

               orders the Commission to pay the applicant a sum corresponding to eight thirtieths of his monthly remuneration at the time of leaving the service, together with default interest as from 13 September 2004. The rate of default interest to be applied is to be calculated on the basis of the European Central Bank's rate for its main refinancing operations, in force during the period concerned, plus two percentage points;

               3.

               dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.