title: Case C-175/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — Taser International Inc. v SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Contracts imposing an obligation on a Romanian undertaking to assign trade marks to an undertaking with its seat in a third country — Refusal — Clause conferring jurisdiction on a third country — Defendant entering an appearance before the Romanian courts without raising an objection — Applicable rules on jurisdiction)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/19

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — Taser International Inc. v SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu
   (Case C-175/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Contracts imposing an obligation on a Romanian undertaking to assign trade marks to an undertaking with its seat in a third country - Refusal - Clause conferring jurisdiction on a third country - Defendant entering an appearance before the Romanian courts without raising an objection - Applicable rules on jurisdiction))
   (2016/C 156/26)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Taser International Inc.

      Defendants: SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 23(5) and 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in a dispute concerning the non-performance of a contractual obligation, in which the applicant has brought proceedings before the courts of the Member State in which the defendant has its seat, the jurisdiction of those courts may stem from Article 24 of that regulation, where the defendant does not dispute their jurisdiction, even though the contract between the two parties contains a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a third country.

               2.

               Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as precluding, in a dispute between parties to a contract which contains a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a third country, the court of the Member State in which the defendant has its seat, which has been seised, from declaring of its own motion that it does not have jurisdiction, even though the defendant does not contest the jurisdiction of that court.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.


title: Case T-674/13: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Gugler France v OHIM — Gugler (GUGLER) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark GUGLER — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Ground raised by the Court of its own motion)

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Gugler France v OHIM — Gugler (GUGLER)
   (Case T-674/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark GUGLER - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Ground raised by the Court of its own motion))
   (2016/C 090/19)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gugler France (Besançon, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alexander Gugler (Maxdorf, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 October 2013 (Case R 356/2012-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Gugler France and Mr Alexander Gugler.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 October 2013 (Case R 356/2012-4);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Gugler France in the course of the proceedings before the Court.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Case T-790/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 July 2016 — Hassan v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Restriction on admission — Annulment of prior measures by a judgment of the General Court — New measures including the applicant's name on the lists — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Presumption of innocence — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 July 2016 — Hassan v Council
   (Case T-790/14) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission - Annulment of prior measures by a judgment of the General Court - New measures including the applicant's name on the lists - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality - Presumption of innocence - Non-contractual liability))
   (2016/C 326/41)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Samir Hassan (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: L. Pettiti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and G. Étienne, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/678/CFSP of 26 September 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2014 L 283, p. 59), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1013/2014 of 26 September 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2014 L 283, p. 9), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 132, p. 82), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/828 of 28 May 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 132, p. 3), in so far as those measures concern the applicant, and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU asking to obtain compensation for the harm which the applicant has allegedly suffered because of those measures.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Mr Samir Hassan to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


title: Case T-703/15: Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Groupe Go Sport v OHIM — Design Go (GO SPORT)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/86

         Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Groupe Go Sport v OHIM — Design Go (GO SPORT)
   (Case T-703/15)
   (2016/C 048/95)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Groupe Go Sport (Sassenage, France) (represented by: G. Arbant and E. Henry-Mayer, lawyers)

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

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘GO SPORT’ — Community trade mark application No 5 144 811

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 September 2015 in Case R 569/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               declare admissible the Appeal R 569/2015-2;

               —

               return the case to the Board of Appeal;

               —

               order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the Applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 60 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 49(1) of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Case C-370/02: Action brought on 15 October 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
C 305/16               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.12.2002
Action brought on 15 October 2002 by the Commission                       In cases where a product is handled at several stages before it
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                        reaches the consumer what is or are, under Article 12(2)(a) of
                              Belgium                                     the Trade Mark Directive (1), the relevant class or classes of
                                                                          persons for determining whether a trade mark has become the
                         (Case C-370/02)                                  common name in the trade for a product in respect of which
                                                                          it is registered?
                         (2002/C 305/28)
                                                                          (1 ) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
                                                                               approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                           marks (OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1).
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
15 October 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Claire-Françoise Durand and
Minas Konstantinidis, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          Action brought on 18 October 2002 by the Commission
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations           of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
       and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
       with Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on                                        (Case C-375/02)
       the landfill of waste (1), and by failing, in any event, to
       communicate such measures to the Commission, the
       Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations                                      (2002/C 305/30)
       under that directive;
(2) order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 October
                                                                          2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          represented by Minas Konstantinidis and Roberto Amorosi,
                                                                          acting as Agents.
The time-limit for transposition expired on 16 July 2001. As
regards the Region of Wallonia, the Kingdom of Belgium has
still not adopted the measures necessary to comply with the               The applicant claims that the Court should:
directive or, at all events, has not communicated those
measures to the Commission.                                               1.     declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary measures
                                                                                to ensure that waste deposited in the disposal sites at
                                                                                Castelliri (Frosinone) is recovered or disposed of without
( 1) OJ L 182 of 16.7.1999, p. 1.
                                                                                endangering human health and without using procedures
                                                                                or methods which could harm the environment, and by
                                                                                failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the
                                                                                holder of waste deposited in the disposal sites at Castelliri
                                                                                (Frosinone) has such waste handled by a private or public
                                                                                collector or an undertaking carrying out the operations
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Svea Hovrätt                           provided for in Annex II A or II B to Directive 75/442/
by order of that Court of 14 October 2002 in the case of                         EEC (1), as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC ( 2), or
Björnekulla Fruktindustrier Aktiebolag against Procordia                         himself recovers or disposes of such waste, the Italian
                         Food Aktiebolag                                         Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4
                                                                                and 8 of that directive;
                         (Case C-371/02)
                                                                          2.     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                         (2002/C 305/29)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Svea Hovrätt (Svea
Court of Appeal) of 14 October 2002, received at the Court                The first paragraph of Article 4 of the directive provides that
Registry on 16 October 2002, for a preliminary ruling in                  Member States are to adopt the necessary measures to ensure
the case of Björnekulla Fruktindustrier Aktiebolag against                that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering
Procordia Food Aktiebolag on the following question:                      human health and without using processes or methods which


title: Action brought on 5 July 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-233/95)

text:
No C 248/4              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     23 . 9 . 95
the reasoned opinion, the Greek authorities forwarded a               reduce pollution of the waters of the Pagassitikos Gulf by
technical report by the Ministry of the Environment, Town             the substances within List II . It should, in addition, have
and Country Planning and Public Works in which details                established quality objectives for the waters of the Gulf in
were set out of the measures taken . That reply did not               question and time-limits for achieving those objectives, and
satisfy the Commission , especially as concerns Directive             it should also have set as a condition for all discharges liable
76/464/EEC . In particular the Commission considered that             to contain any of the substances within List II the issue of
the measures provided for in Article 7 of the Directive, that         prior authorization in which emission standards are to be
is to say in respect of quality objectives and authorization of       laid down .
discharges in which emission standards are to be laid down,
as specified in Article 7 ( 2 ), were completely absent . For         From the evidence and studies available to the Commission
those reasons the Court is requested to declare that the              it would appear that the Greek authorities have not taken
Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations under the           the appropriate measures to control and limit the sources of
said Directive .                                                      pollution of the Pagassitikos Gulf, which is an enclosed gulf
                                                                      with a very small outlet into the Aegean and very slow
                                                                      renewal of water .
(') OJ No L 129 , 18 . 5 . 1976 , p . 23 .
                                                                      The Greek authorities accept that there are no specialized
                                                                      programmes and refer to the fact that they have asked the
                                                                      University of the Aegean to undertake a study of the sources
                                                                      discharging toxic substances within List II of Directive
                                                                      76/464/EEC .
Action brought on 5 July 1995 by the Commission of the
     European Communities against the Hellehic Republic               Consequently the Commission notes that the Greek
                         ( Case C-233/95 )                            authorities are in a purely preliminary stage as regards the
                                                                      measures which they are obliged to take under Article 7 of
                           ( 95/C 248/06 )                            the above Directive and accordingly have not fulfilled their
                                                                      obligations thereunder.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
 the Court of Justice on 5 July 1995 by the Commission                 ( ] ) OJ No L 129 , 18 . 5 . 1976 , p . 23 .
 of the European Communities, represented by Maria
 Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service , with an address for
 service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
 Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre .
 The applicant claims that the Court:                                 Action brought on 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
 ( 1 ) should declare that,                                                                      ( Case C-236/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 248/07)
        — by failing to establish programmes to include
            quality objectives and to lay down time-limits for
            achieving those objectives, in order to reduce             An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice on 6 July 1995 by the Commission of
            pollution of the waters of the Pagassitikos Gulf
            by the substances within List II of Directive              the European Communities, represented by Dimitrios
            76/464/EEC (*) of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused           Gouloussis, of its Legal Service, with an address for service
                                                                       in Luxembourg at the officie of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
            by certain dangerous substances discharged into the
                                                                        also of its Legal Service , Wagner Centre .
            aquatic environment of the Community, and
        — by not subjecting discharges into the Pagassitikos           The applicant claims that the Court should:
            Gulf which are liable to contain substances within
            List II to prior authorization by the competent             ( 1 ) declare that by failing to adopt and, in the alternative,
            authority in which emission standards are to be laid              to notify to the Commission within the prescribed
            down,                                                             period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                              provisions necessary to comply fully with Council
        the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations            Directive 89/665/EEC (*) of 21 December 1989 on
        under the Treaty and Article 7 of Council Directive                   the coordination of the laws, regulations and
        76/464/EEC;                                                           administrative provisions relating to the application of
                                                                               review procedures to the award of public supply and
  ( 2 ) order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .                         public works contracts, in particular, by not adopting
                                                                               and, in the alternative, by not notifying to the
                                                                               Commission within the prescribed period the necessary
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                               relating to the award of public supply contracts, the
  under Article 7 of Directive 76/464/EEC the Republic of                      Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
  Greece should have established programmes in order to                        under the EC Treaty;


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 October 2004 in Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Lörrach): Bernhard Pfeiffer (C-397/01), Wilhelm Roith (C-398/01), Albert Süß (C-399/01), Michael Winter (C-400/01), Klaus Nestvogel (C-401/01), Roswitha Zeller (C-402/01), Matthias Döbele (C-403/01) v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV (Social policy — Protection of the health and safety of workers — Directive 93/104/EC — Scope — Emergency workers in attendance in ambulances in the framework of an emergency service run by the German Red Cross — Definition of ‘road transport’ — Maximum weekly working time — Principle — Direct effect — Derogation — Conditions)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 5 October 2004
   in Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Lörrach): Bernhard Pfeiffer (C-397/01), Wilhelm Roith (C-398/01), Albert Süß (C-399/01), Michael Winter (C-400/01), Klaus Nestvogel (C-401/01), Roswitha Zeller (C-402/01), Matthias Döbele (C-403/01) v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV (1)

   (Social policy - Protection of the health and safety of workers - Directive 93/104/EC - Scope - Emergency workers in attendance in ambulances in the framework of an emergency service run by the German Red Cross - Definition of ‘road transport’ - Maximum weekly working time - Principle - Direct effect - Derogation - Conditions)
   (2004/C 300/03)
   Language of the case: German
   In Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Arbeitsgericht Lörrach (Germany), made by orders of 26 September 2001, received at the Court on 12 October 2001, in the proceedings between Bernhard Pfeiffer (C-397/01), Wilhelm Roith (C-398/01), Albert Süß (C-399/01), Michael Winter (C-400/01), Klaus Nestvogel (C-401/01), Roswitha Zeller (C-402/01), Matthias Döbele (C-403/01) and Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Presidents of Chambers, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and K. Lenaerts, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

                           (a)

                           Article 2 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work and Article 1(3) of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be construed as meaning that the activity of emergency workers, carried out in the framework of an emergency medical service, such as that at issue before the national court, falls within the scope of the directives.

                           (b)

                           On a proper construction, the concept of ‘road transport’ in Article 1(3) of Directive 93/104 does not encompass the activity of an emergency medical service, even though the latter includes using a vehicle and accompanying a patient on the journey to hospital.

               2.

               The first indent of Article 18(1)(b)(i) of Directive 93/104 is to be construed as requiring consent to be expressly and freely given by each worker individually if the 48-hour maximum period of weekly working time, as laid down in Article 6 of the directive, is to be validly extended. In that connection, it is not sufficient that the relevant worker's employment contract refers to a collective agreement which permits such an extension.

               3.

               Article 6, point 2, of Directive 93/104 must be interpreted, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, as precluding legislation in a Member State the effect of which, as regards periods of duty time (‘Arbeitsbereitschaft’) completed by emergency workers in the framework of the emergency medical service of a body such as the Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, is to permit, including by means of a collective agreement or works agreement based on such an agreement, the 48-hour maximum period of weekly working time laid down by that provision to be exceeded;

                           —

                           Article 6(2) of Directive 93/104 fulfils all the conditions necessary for it to have direct effect;

                           —

                           when hearing a case between individuals the national court is required, when applying the provisions of domestic law adopted for the purpose of transposing obligations laid down by a directive, to consider the whole body of rules of national law and to interpret them, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of the directive in order to achieve an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by the directive. In the main proceedings, the national court must thus do whatever lies within its jurisdiction to ensure that the maximum period of weekly working time, which is set at 48 hours by Article 6(2) of Directive 93/104, is not exceeded.

      (1)  OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.


title: Case C-537/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 24 October 2016 — Garlsson Real Estate SA, in liquidation, and Others v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 24 October 2016 — Garlsson Real Estate SA, in liquidation, and Others v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
   (Case C-537/16)
   (2017/C 022/11)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Garlsson Real Estate SA, in liquidation, Stefano Ricucci, Magiste International SA

      Cross-appellant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, interpreted in the light of Article 4 of Protocol No 7 to the European Convention on Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and national law, preclude the possibility of conducting administrative proceedings in respect of an act (unlawful conduct consisting in market manipulation) for which the same person has been convicted by a decision that has the force or res judicata?

               2.

               May the national court directly apply EU principles in connection with the ne bis in idem principle, on the basis of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, interpreted in the light of Article 4 of Protocol No 7 to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and national law?


title: Judgment of the Court of 4 May 1999 in joined Cases C-108/97 and C-109/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I): Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH (WSC) v Boots- und Segelzubehör Walter Huber (C-108/97) and Franz Attenberger (C-109/97) (Directive 89/104/EEC - Trade marks - Geographical indications of origin)

text:
17.7.1999                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 204/13
     allowances for his child who resides with him in that Member                   associated with the category of goods in question; it also
     State, he must be in possession of a residence entitlement or a                applies to geographical names which are liable to be used in
     residence permit, whereas for that purpose nationals of that State             future by the undertakings concerned as an indication of the
     are required only to be resident there.                                        geographical origin of that category of goods;
2. The direct effect of Article 3(1) of Decision No 3/80 may not be             — where there is currently no association in the mind of the
     relied on in support of claims relating to benefits in respect of              relevant class of persons between the geographical name and
     periods prior to the date of this judgment except as regards those             the category of goods in question, the competent authority
     persons who, before that date, initiated proceedings or made an                must assess whether it is reasonable to assume that such a
     equivalent claim.                                                              name is, in the mind of the relevant class of persons, capable
                                                                                of designating the geographical origin of that category of
(1) OJ C 269 of 14.9.1996.                                                          goods;
                                                                                — in making that assessment, particular consideration should
                                                                                be given to the degree of familiarity amongst the relevant
                                                                                class of persons with the geographica1 name in question,
                                                                                with the characteristics of the place designated by that name,
                                                                                and with the category of good concerned;
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                — it is not necessary for the goods to be manufactured in the
                                                                                geographical location in order for them to be associated with
                             of 4 May 1999                                          it.
in joined Cases C-108/97 and C-109/97 (reference for a                      2. The first sentence of Article 3(3) of the First Directive
preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I):                             89/104/EEC is to be interpreted as meaning that:
Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH
(WSC) v Boots- und Segelzubehör Walter Huber (C-
         108/97) and Franz Attenberger (C-109/97) (1)                           — a trade mark acquires distinctive character following the use
                                                                                which has been made of it where the mark has come to
                                                                                identify the product in respect of which registration is applied
(Directive 89/104/EEC — Trade marks — Geographical
                                                                                for as originating from a particular undertaking and thus to
                         indications of origin)
                                                                                distinguish that product from goods of other undertakings;
                            (1999/C 204/24)
                                                                                — it precludes differentiation as regards distinctiveness by
                                                                                reference to the perceived importance of keeping the geo-
                    (Language of the case: German)                                  graphical name available for use by other undertakings;
                                                                                — in determining whether a trace mark has acquired distinctive
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published              character following the use which has been made of it, the
                     in the European Court Reports)                                 competent authority must make an overall assessment of the
                                                                                evidence that the mark has come to identify the product
In Joined Cases C-108/97 and C-109/97: reference to the                             concerned as originating from a particular undertaking and
Court under Article 234 EC (ex Article 177) by the Landgericht                      thus to distinguish that product from goods of other
München I, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-                        undertakings;
ings pending before that court between Windsurfing Chiemsee
Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH (WSC) and Boots- und                            — if the competent authority finds that a significant proportion
Segelzubehör Walter Huber (C-108/97), Franz Attenberger                             of the relevant class of persons identify goods as originating
(C-109/97) — on the interpretation of Articles 3(1)(c) and 3(3)                     from a particular undertaking because of the trade mark, it
of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December                            must hold the requirement for registering the mark to be
1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating                          satisfied;
to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — the Court, composed
of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn,
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers,                — where the competent authority has particular difficulty in
G.F. Mancini, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rappor-                         assessing the distinctive character of a mark in respect of
teur) and D.A.O. Edward, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate Gen-                           which registration is applied for, Community law does not
eral; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                    preclude it from having recourse, under the conditions laid
given a judgment on 4 May 1999, in which it has ruled:                              down by its own national law, to an opinion poll as guidance
                                                                                for its judgment.
1. Article 3(1)(c) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21
     December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
     relating to trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that:          (1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.
     — it does not prohibit the registration of geographical names
          as trade marks solely where the names designate places which
          are, in the mind of the relevant class of persons, currently


title: Case T-21/14: Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — NetMed v OHIM — Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik (SANDTER 1953) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SANDTER 1953 — Earlier national word mark Sander — Relative ground for refusal — Partial refusal of registration — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — NetMed v OHIM — Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik (SANDTER 1953)
   (Case T-21/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SANDTER 1953 - Earlier national word mark Sander - Relative ground for refusal - Partial refusal of registration - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 429/24)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: NetMed Sàrl (Wasserbillig, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Schafhaus, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik GmbH (Baden-Baden, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 October 2013 (Case R 1846/2012-1) relating to opposition proceedings between NetMed Sàrl and Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders NetMed Sàrl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Case C-40/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Aspiro SA, formerly BRE Ubezpieczenia sp. z o.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 135(1)(a) — Exemption for insurance — Definition of ‘insurance’ transactions and of ‘related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents’ — Claims settlement services provided by and on behalf of an insurer)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/13

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Aspiro SA, formerly BRE Ubezpieczenia sp. z o.o.
   (Case C-40/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(1)(a) - Exemption for insurance - Definition of ‘insurance’ transactions and of ‘related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents’ - Claims settlement services provided by and on behalf of an insurer))
   (2016/C 156/18)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minister Finansów

      Defendant: Aspiro SA, formerly BRE Ubezpieczenia sp. z o.o.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 135(1)(a) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that claims settlement services, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, provided by a third party in the name and on behalf of an insurance company, do not fall within the exemption laid down by that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.


title: Case C-605/13 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2013 by Issam Anbouba against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-563/11 Anbouba v Council

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/19

         Appeal brought on 25 November 2013 by Issam Anbouba against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-563/11 Anbouba v Council
   (Case C-605/13 P)
   2014/C 45/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Issam Anbouba (represented by: J.-M. Salva and M.-A. Bastin, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2013 in Case T-563/11 Issam Anbouba v Council of the European Union;

               —

               declare unlawful the decision to include the appellant on the list of persons and entities subject to economic sanctions;

               —

               annul the decisions and regulations contested in Case T-563/11;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the two sets of proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward two grounds of appeal.
   In the first place, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law by taking the view that the Council, in so far as it could not adduce evidence of the appellant’s support of the regime in Syria, properly applied a presumption that the persons in charge of the main Syrian undertakings supported the regime in Syria. The first part of the first ground of appeal alleges that there is no legal basis for such a presumption. The extremely serious and impeding nature of restrictive measures means that such measures cannot be applied on the basis of a presumption the lawful recourse to which has not been provided for by any legislative act. The second part of the first ground of appeal is based on the disproportionate nature of that presumption in relation to the objective pursued, particularly in view of its extremely general nature. The third part of the first ground of appeal is based on the irrebuttable nature of that presumption. To adduce evidence of the negative — that there is no support for the regime in Syria — would be substantively impossible and adducing positive evidence of opposition to the regime could not reasonably be considered to be the only way of establishing that there is no link to that regime.
   In the second place, the appellant claims that the General Court delivered judgment in the absence of evidence on the part of the Council. By the first part of his second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by not carrying out a normal judicial review of the contested decisions, on the one hand, and by delivering its judgment in the absence of evidence adduced before it by the Council, on the other. By the second part of his second ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court failed to attach consequences, in the judgment under appeal, to a manifest breach of the rule that the parties should be heard and of the appellant’s rights of defence. The General Court, he claims, released the Council from having to submit evidence or grounds for not submitting such evidence and accepted that the Council could base its decision solely on a presumption to which it was not, however, properly entitled to have recourse.


title: Case C-325/17 P: Appeal brought on 31 May 2017 by Windrush Aka LLP against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 22 March 2017 in Case T-336/15: Windrush Aka LLP v EUIPO

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/2

         Appeal brought on 31 May 2017 by Windrush Aka LLP against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 22 March 2017 in Case T-336/15: Windrush Aka LLP v EUIPO
   (Case C-325/17 P)
   (2017/C 347/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Windrush Aka LLP (represented by: S. Britton, Solicitor, S. Malynicz QC, S. Tregear, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Jerry Dammers

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of the General Court in Case T-366/15 dated 22 March 2017;

               —

               order the EUIPO and Mr Jerry Dammers (the EUTM proprietor) to pay their own costs and pay those of the appellant

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1)

               First, the General Court distorted the evidence and incorrectly assessed the facts, and its decision contains a substantive inaccuracy in the findings attributable to the documents submitted to it.

               2)

               Secondly, the General Court breached Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 4 March 2015 (OJ 2015, L 105, p. 1), by declining to hold a hearing in the light of the abandonment by the EUTM proprietor of material parts of its purported evidence of use of the contested EUTM following the hearing.

               3)

               Thirdly, the General Court wrongly held that the appellant raised a new plea for the first time at the hearing.

               4)

               Fourthly, the General Court failed to appreciate the effect in law of an assignment of a right to a name i.e. that the assignment gives no further right to the assignor (i.e., the EUTM proprietor) to grant or refuse consent to the use of the name (i.e., the contested EUTM), with the result that there is no further consent under Union law following the date of the assignment.


title: Case C-384/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium)) — Jan Voogsgeerd v Navimer SA (Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations — Contract of employment — Choice made by the parties — Mandatory rules of the law applicable in the absence of choice — Determination of that law — Employee carrying out his work in more than one Contracting State)

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium)) — Jan Voogsgeerd v Navimer SA
   (Case C-384/10) (1)

   (Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations - Contract of employment - Choice made by the parties - Mandatory rules of the law applicable in the absence of choice - Determination of that law - Employee carrying out his work in more than one Contracting State)
   2012/C 39/06
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jan Voogsgeerd

      Defendant: Navimer SA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Article 6(2)(b) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1) — Law applicable in the absence of choice — Contract of employment — Worker not habitually carrying out his work in one single country — Chief marine engineer

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 6(2) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980, must be interpreted as meaning that the national court seised of the case must first establish whether the employee, in the performance of his contract, habitually carries out his work in the same country, which is the country in which or from which, in the light of all the factors which characterise that activity, the employee performs the main part of his obligations towards his employer.

               2.

               In the case where the national court takes the view that it cannot rule on the dispute before it under Article 6(2)(a) of that convention, Article 6(2)(b) of the Rome Convention must be interpreted as follows:

                           —

                           the concept of ‘the place of business through which the employee was engaged’ must be understood as referring exclusively to the place of business which engaged the employee and not to that with which the employee is connected by his actual employment;

                           —

                           the possession of legal personality does not constitute a requirement which must be fulfilled by the place of business of the employer within the meaning of that provision;

                           —

                           the place of business of an undertaking other than that which is formally referred to as the employer, with which that undertaking has connections, may be classified as a ‘place of business’, within the meaning of Article 6(2)(b) of that convention, if there are objective factors enabling an actual situation to be established which differs from that which appears from the terms of the contract, and even though the authority of the employer has not been formally transferred to that other undertaking.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case T-86/01: Action brought on 11 April 2001 by Robert Bosch GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
30.6.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 186/13
—     in the alternative: review the amounts accounted for in          Action brought on 11 April 2001 by Robert Bosch GmbH
      the decision of 21 February 2001, reducing the amount            against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      not attributed to IAMA Consulting S.r.l., to its detriment,                    Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      in each case in an amount not less than LIT 600 000 000
      (six hundred million), the exact amount to be quantified
      according to prudent and fair assessment;                                                 (Case T-86/01)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                   (2001/C 186/20)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                          (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
The present action has been brought against the measures               Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
adopted by the Commission on 12 February 2001 (INFSO-                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
3/dec0033FM/D(01)240047) and 21 February 2001 (INFO-                   11 April 2001 by Robert Bosch GmbH, of Stuttgart (Germany),
R2/feb0020RW/D(01)400027) respectively, with regard to                 represented by Stefan Völker, Rechtsanwalt, with an address
the eligibility of expenses incurred by IAMA International             for service in Luxembourg.
Management Advisors S.r.l. and by the applicant in the context
of ESPRIT projects REGIS 22337 and REFIAG 23200, in so
far as the expenses incurred by the applicant in the periods           The applicant claims that the Court should:
1 May 1996 to 31 October 1997 (Project REGIS 22337) and
1 November 1996 to 31 October 1997 (Project REFIAG                     —     annul the decision adopted on 31 January 2001 by the
23200) are not recognised as eligible.                                       First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                             the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in the
                                                                             appeal proceedings registered under number
In support of its arguments, the applicant claims:                           R 123/2000-1 concerning Community trade mark appli-
                                                                             cation No 761 304;
—     Infringement and misapplication of Articles 1362, 1366,
      1368, 1370, 1374 and 1375 of the Italian Civil Code;             —     order the defendant Office to pay the costs.
—     Misuse of powers inasmuch as the facts were misassessed
      and misrepresented. The applicant submits in this respect        Pleas in law and main arguments
      that the Commission regards the applicant undertaking
      as separate and autonomous from the other undertaking
      mentioned above, whereas they form part of the IAMA              Applicant for the Com-        the applicant
      group, of which both are representative. Consequently,           munity trade mark:
      the defendant appears to have accorded decisive import-
      ance to the formal matter of IAMA Consulting S.r.l.
                                                                       The trade mark con-           the verbal mark ‘Kit Super Pro’
      replacing IAMA International S.r.l., regarding it as suc-
                                                                       cerned:
      cessor to the relationship originally entered into with
      IAMA International S.r.l. only since 1 November 1997.
                                                                       Goods or service con-         goods and services in Class 12
                                                                       cerned:                       (parts for repairing drum brakes
—     Misuse of powers inasmuch as the measures are illogical,                                       in land vehicles)
      contradictory and do not provide an adequate statement
      of reasons. The applicant submits in this respect that, in
      view of the fact that the two aforementioned undertakings        Decision        contested     refusal of the application for regis-
      belong to the same group, of which the applicant is the          before the Board of           tration of the mark
      operational undertaking in relation to the group leader          Appeal:
      IAMA International S.r.l., and that contracts were per-
      formed in good time, it is difficult to see the objective        Grounds of claim:             — The mark is not descriptive
      pursued by the Commission in penalising the IAMA                                                   within the meaning of
      group by not finding eligible the expenses incurred by                                             Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
      the applicant in the performance of contracts which,                                               (EC) No 40/94 (1).
      moreover, made it possible for the prescribed objectives
                                                                                — There is no need to keep the
      to be fully attained.
                                                                                mark free.
                                                                                — The mark possesses the mini-
                                                                                mum level of distinctiveness
                                                                                necessary for trade-mark pro-
                                                                                tection.
 ---pagebreak--- C 186/14              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      30.6.2001
                              — Registration of the mark in             Pleas in law and principal arguments
                                  question would accord with
                                  the other aspects of the
                                  decision-making practice fol-         The applicant pleads, with reference to the judgment in
                                  lowed by the Boards of                Antillean Rice Mills, that safeguard measures must be of a
                                  Appeal.                               temporary nature. It maintains that no assessment whatever
                                                                        has been carried out, let alone any examination of the need for
                              — Infringement,         alternatively     an extension.
                                  misinterpretation,             of
                                  Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regu-
                                  lation No 40/94.                      For the rest, the pleas in law and main arguments are analogous
                                                                        to those in Cases T-94/00 and T-332/00.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                          (1) What is meant is Commission Regulation (EC) No 396/2001 of
                                                                            27 February 2001 providing for the continued application of
                                                                            safeguard measures for imports from the overseas countries and
                                                                            territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of
                                                                            origin for the period 1 March to 30 June 2001 (OJ L 58 of
                                                                            28.2.2001, p. 13).
Action brought on 13 April 2001 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                                                                        Action brought on 24 April 2001 by Sniace, S.A. against
                          (Case T-87/01)                                       the Commission of the European Communities
                         (2001/C 186/21)                                                            (Case T-88/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 186/22)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 April 2001 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV, established at Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
G. van der Wal, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch.              European Communities on 24 April 2001 by Sniace, S.A.,
                                                                        established in Madrid, represented by José Luis Baró Fuentes,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Miguel Angel Gómez de Liaño y Botella and Fernando
                                                                        Rodrı́guez Carretero, abogados.
—    annul Regulation No 376/2001 (1);
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    rule that the Community is liable for the damage suffered
     by the applicant as a result of the fact that, since 1 March       —     annul Article 1 of the decision of 19 July 2000, inasmuch
     2001, the importation of the products referred to in                     as it establishes that the provision of guarantees amount-
     Regulation No 376/2001 has been prevented or restricted                  ing to EUR 35,80 million does not constitute State aid
     in consequence of that regulation, and order that the                    within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty;
     parties should seek to reach agreement on the extent of
     the damage suffered by the applicant, and that, if no such         —     annul Article 2 of the decision, inasmuch as it establishes
     agreement is reached, the proceedings are to be resumed                  that the aid granted by Austria to LLG through the
     within a time-limit to be specified by the Court, with a                 provision of a guarantee amounting to EUR 14,5 million
     view to determining the quantum of the damage, and                       by WiBAG complies with the guarantee guidelines
     further order the Community to pay the damages pro-                      approved by the Commission under number No 542/95;
     visionally quantified and yet to be quantified, alternatively
     to pay such compensation as the Court may deem fair                —     annul Article 3 of the decision, inasmuch as it establishes
     and equitable, together with interest thereon at the rate                that the individual aid which Austria has granted in the
     of 8 % per annum from the date of the application until                  form of aid amounting to EUR 0,4 million for land
     payment in full;                                                         acquisition and in the form of equity capital amounting
                                                                              to EUR 21,8 million is compatible with the common
—    order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   market;


title: Case C-393/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 21 July 2015 — Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie v ESET spol. s r.o. sp. z o.o., oddział w Polsce

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 21 July 2015 — Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie v ESET spol. s r.o. sp. z o.o., oddział w Polsce
   (Case C-393/15)
   (2015/C 337/07)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie

      Defendant: ESET spol. s r.o. sp. z o.o., oddział w Polsce

      Question referred

   Do Articles 168 and 169(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) not preclude, in the case of a branch registered for VAT purposes in one Member State and carrying out mainly intra-company transactions for a parent company established in another Member State and occasionally also transactions taxable in the State where the branch is registered, the taxable person from being entitled to deduct input tax in the State in which the branch is registered, despite the fact that the tax is linked to transactions carried out by the parent company in another Member State?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 18 December 1997 in Case C-409/96 P: Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening and Sven Åke Henrikson v. Commission of the European Communities (Common agricultural policy - Agricultural conversion rate in the sugar sector - Appeal clearly unfounded)

text:
7.3.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 72/5
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                Registry on 16 December 1997, in the criminal
                       (Third Chamber)                              proceedings against Adrianus Hendrikus Albers, Martinus
                                                                    Johannes Maria Van den Berkmortel and Leon Victor
                    of 18 December 1997                             Pierre Maria Nuchelmans on the following question:
in Case C-409/96 P: Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening
and Sven ke Henrikson v. Commission of the European                Does the Verordening Stoffen met sympathico mimetische
                        Communities (1)                             werking (P.V.V.) 1991 and, more particularly, Article 3(1)
                                                                    thereof, contain technical regulations which, pursuant to
(Common agricultural policy Ð Agricultural conversion
                                                                    Article 8 of Directive 83/189/EEC (1), as it stood at the
    rate in the sugar sector Ð Appeal clearly unfounded)
                                                                    time when the Verordening came into force, should have
                         (98/C 72/08)                               been notified to the Commission beforehand?'
                (Language of the case: English)                     (1) OJ L 109, 26.4.1983, p. 8.
In Case C-409/96 P: Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening,
an association established under Swedish law, having its
registered office in Malmö (Sweden), and Sven ke
Henrikson, residing in Lund (Sweden), represented by
Otfried Lieberknecht, Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, Michael             Reference      for    a     preliminary   ruling    by    the
Schütte, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, and Vanessa Turner,                  Verwaltungsgericht, Autonome Sektion für die Provinz
Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the         Bozen, Italy, by order of that court of 16 December 1997
Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume Ð                   in the cases brought by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF),
appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance of          Italia Nostra, national association, and Günther
the European Communities (First Chamber) of 4 October               Bachmann and others v. the Autonome Provinz Bozen, the
1996       in    Case     T-197/95     Sveriges    Betodlares       Ministry of Transport, the Gemeinde Bozen, the
Centralförening and Henrikson v. Commission [1996]                  Gemeinde Leifers, Südtiroler Transportstrukturen AG and
ECR II-1283, seeking to have that order set aside, the                                Airport Bolzano-Bozen AG
other party to the proceedings being the Commission of                                      (Case C-435/97)
the European Communities (Agent: James Macdonald
                                                                                (98/C 72/10)
Flett) Ð the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C.
Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida and J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), Judges; M. B.
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Elmer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
                                                                    European        Communities        by    order     of     the
order on 18 December 1997, the operative part of which
                                                                    Verwaltungsgericht, Autonome Sektion für die Provinz
is as follows:
                                                                    Bozen (Administrative Court, Separate Division for the
                                                                    Province of Bolzano), Italy, of 16 December 1997,
1. The appeal is dismissed.                                         received at the Court Registry on 24 December 1997, for
                                                                    a preliminary ruling in the cases brought by the World
                                                                    Wildlife Fund (WWF), Italia Nostra, national association,
2. The appellants are ordered to pay the costs.                     and Günther Bachmann and others against the Autonome
                                                                    Provinz Bozen (Autonomous Province of Bolzano), the
(1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.                                              Ministry of Transport, the Gemeinde Bozen (District of
                                                                    Bolzano), the Gemeinde Leifers (District of LaÁives),
                                                                    Südtiroler Transportstrukturen AG and Airport Bolzano-
                                                                    Bozen AG on the following questions:
                                                                    1. Is Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC (1) to be
                                                                         interpreted as meaning:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof
te 's-Hertogenbosch, by judgment of that court of
11 November 1997 in the criminal proceedings against                     (a) that certain classes of the projects listed in
Adrianus Hendrikus Albers, Martinus Johannes Maria                            Annex II may from the outset, in the absolute
Van den Berkmortel and Leon Victor Pierre Maria                               discretion of the Member States, be excluded in
                          Nuchelmans                                          their entirety from the obligation to carry out an
                                                                              environmental assessment; or
          (Cases C-425/97, C-426/97 and C-427/97)
                         (98/C 72/09)                                    (b) that the margin of discretion enjoyed by the
                                                                              Member States is limited by the obligation laid
                                                                              down in Article 2(1) of the directive to subject to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        an environmental assessment in any event those
European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof                           projects likely to have significant effects on the
(Regional Court of Appeal) 's-Hertogenbosch, of                               environment, by virtue inter alia of their nature,
11 November 1997, which was received at the Court                             size or location?


title: Action brought on 17 August 1995 by Harald Meuser against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-160/95)

text:
No C 248/ 18           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     23 . 9 . 95
Action brought on 27 July 1995 by Raymond Kaps against                The applicant maintains, lastly, that the selection board
    the Court of Justice of the European Communities                  committed     a  manifest error of assessment when              it
                        ( Case T-153/95 )                             considered, on the basis of his reply to a single question, that
                                                                      the applicant's knowledge of English was virtually
                          ( 95/C 248/38 )                             non-existent and that he deserved a mark of 4/ 10 for his
                                                                      linguistic knowledge; he considers that a selection board
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      cannot validly assess the linguistic knowledge of a candidate
                                                                      on such a basis .
An action against the Court of Justice of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance on 27 July 1995 by Raymond Kaps, resident in
Schifflange ( Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg ) represented by
Jean-Noel Louis and Ariane Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson, Rue Glesener 1 .                                    Action brought on 17 August 1995 by Harald Meuser
                                                                      against the Council of the European Union and the
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                  Commission of the European Communities
— annul the decision of the selection board in competition                                  ( Case T- 160/95 )
    CJ 5 1 /93 allotting the applicant, for the written and oral                              ( 95/C 248/39 )
    tests, marks which did not enable him to be included
    amongst the successful candidates on the reserve list,
                                                                                Language of the case: German
— annul the defendant's decision not to include the
    applicant on the reserve list from competition CJ 51/93           An action against the Council of the European Union and
    and the decision of 15 May 1995 rejecting the                     the Commission of the European Communities was brought
    applicant's complaint,                                            before the Court of First Instance on 17 August 1995 by
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                              Harald Meuser, Edertal-Giflitz, represented by Bernd
                                                                      Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Dr.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Frank Schulze and Dr. Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte,
                                                                      Münster, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
The applicant claims, first, that the selection board had the         Chambers of Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains,
test papers of the candidates who had used a language of              Luxembourg.
which the members of the selection board did not have
sufficient knowledge translated and typed; since one of the
criteria for marking the first written test was the 'quality of       The applicant claims that the Court should :
language used', the result of that procedure is that the
selection board compared the quality of the language used             — order the defendants to pay to the applicant SLOM-III
by professional translators with that used by the candidates              compensation for the period for 30 September 1985 to
who had chosen a language of which the members of the                     29 July 1993 in the amount of DM 123 307,50 together
selection board did have sufficient knowledge . The                       with interest at the rate of 8 % for the period from
candidates whose test papers were translated and ,                        19 May 1992 and order the defendants jointly to pay the
moreover, typed, thus benefited from a considerable                       legal costs,
advantage over the others, in breach of the principle of equal
treatment of candidates .                                             — join the present application to the cases already pending
                                                                          before it, Hülserberg and Others, Case T-77/93 , and
The applicant claims , furthermore, that the competition                  also to stay the proceedings .
notice was infringed, inasmuch as the selection board
admitted that it had asked the candidates questions with a
view to assessing their capacity for careful thought, which is        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
a criterion that does not appear amongst those indicated in
the competition notice .                                              The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                      of Case T-20/94 .


title: Case T-82/09: Action brought on 20 February 2009 — Dennekamp v Parlement

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/29

         Action brought on 20 February 2009 — Dennekamp v Parlement
   (Case T-82/09)
   2009/C 102/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: G. -J. Dennekamp (Giethoorn, Netherlands) (represented by: O. Brouwer and A. Stoffer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicant's costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, including the costs of any intervening parties and costs relating to the request for an expedited procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   On 20 October 2008, the applicant requested the European Parliament, on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), to grant access to it to (i) all documents showing which Members of Parliament (MEPs) are also members of the Additional Pension Scheme, (ii) a list of names of the MEPs that were members of the Additional Pension Scheme on 1 September 2005 and (iii) a list of names of the present members of the Additional Pension Scheme for whom the Parliament pays a monthly contribution. The Parliament rejected the applicant's request and confirmed its refusal in its decision of 17 December 2008.
   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Decision A(2008)22050, of 17 December 2008, of the European Parliament concerning the refusal of access to documents which the applicant requested on the basis of Regulation (EC) no 1049/2001.
   The applicant claims that the refusal is based on an error of assessment and constitutes a manifest breach of the rules and principles regarding access to documents contained in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and of the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 (2). As a result, the Parliament has infringed the applicant's right of access to documents of Community institutions as laid down in Article 255 EC, Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the decision is vitiated by the following errors of law and of assessment.

               (a)

               According to the applicant, the Parliament infringed Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and erroneously based its refusal on Article 4(1)(b) of the aforementioned Regulation, as disclosure of the requested documents is not capable of undermining the private lives of the MEPs concerned.

               (b)

               In addition, the Parliament allegedly misapplied Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, as it erroneously found that the applicant's request should be assessed under Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.

               (c)

               Moreover, the applicant submits that the Parliament failed to establish a fair balance between the public interests served by disclosure and the private interests allegedly affected. It also failed to assess to what extent the alleged private interests would be actually and specifically undermined.

               (d)

               The Parliament infringed, according to the applicant, Article 235 EC as it has not provided adequate reasons for its refusal. Finally, it is submitted that the decision does not show that the Parliament has carried out a concrete assessment per individual documents referred to the applicant's request for access.

      (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 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1)


title: Case T-20/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Hungary v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — Hungarian tax on advertisement turnover — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/22

         Order of the President of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Hungary v Commission
   (Case T-20/17 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - State aid - Hungarian tax on advertisement turnover - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
   (2017/C 178/30)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2016) 6929 final of 4 November 2016 on the measure SA.39235 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Hungary on the taxation of advertisement turnover.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case F-144/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 9 December 2008 — Efstathopoulos v European Parliament (Staff case — Former members of the temporary staff — Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2689/95 — Termination of service allowance — Inclusion of a productivity bonus in the calculation of the amount of gross income received in the context of new duties)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/73

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 9 December 2008 — Efstathopoulos v European Parliament
   (Case F-144/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Former members of the temporary staff - Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2689/95 - Termination of service allowance - Inclusion of a productivity bonus in the calculation of the amount of gross income received in the context of new duties)
   (2009/C 44/128)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Spyridon Efstathopoulos (Chalandri, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Michi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and A. Troupiotis, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 18 April 2007 leading to a reduction of the applicant's retirement pension and to the recovery of the overpayment
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008, p. 50.


title: Action brought on 19 December 1995 by the Committee of European Copier Manufacturers (Cecom) against the Council of the European Union (Case T-232/95)

text:
No C 64/ 18              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2 . 3 . 96
        those institutions have unlawfully failed to take              years from the entry into force of Regulation ( EC )
        appropriate and timely steps to eradicate such                 No 2380/95 is invalid . In its submission, the second
        uncertainty .                                                  paragraph of Article 3 of Regulation ( EC ) No 2380/95 is
                                                                       invalid on the following grounds :
The loss which the applicant has suffered and will suffer falls
into two categories :
                                                                       ( a ) infringement of Article 15 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
( a ) 'current loss' — the loss of turnover and profit that is               No 2423/88 : under this provision, anti-dumping duties
        already being sustained as a result of a current fall in             are to remain valid not only for five years from their
        demand for fur pelts and related products, in the                    entry into force, but for five years from the date on
        expectation that such pelts will or may not be able to be            which they were last modified or confirmed . That is a
        imported after 1 January 1996 ;                                      mandatory provision from which the Council may not
                                                                             derogate, and indeed has not derogated in its practice to
( b ) 'future loss' — the future losses of turnover and profit               date. The Regulation does not state any reason why
        that will be suffered as and when any import ban takes               there should be a derogation in favour of plain paper
        effect .                                                             photocopiers with a speed of more than 75 copies per
                                                                             minute ( Article 190 , EC Treaty );
                                                                       ( b ) in the alternative, manifest error of assessment in the
                                                                             shortening of the five-year period to two years : the
Action brought on 19 December 1995 by the Committee of                       restriction of the validity of Regulation ( EC )
European Copier Manufacturers ( Cecom ) against the                          No 2380/95 to two years clearly contradicts the factual
                  Council of the European Union
                                                                             findings by the Community institutions in the
                                                                             investigation proceedings . Significant dumping was
                          ( Case T-232/95 )                                  established, as was significant injury to the Community
                             ( 96/C 64/36 )                                  industry and the existence of a Community interest in
                                                                             continuing anti-dumping protection . Five years of
                  (Language of the case: German)                             anti-dumping measures are necessary in order to
                                                                             counteract the harmful dumping. Regulation ( EC )
                                                                             No 2380/95 does not state why in the case of plain
An action against the Council of the European Union was                      paper photocopiers with a speed of over 75 copies per
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                   minute, which are protected against harmful dumping
Communities on 19 December 1995 by the Committee of                          for the first time by that Regulation, the protection is to
European Copier Manufacturers ( Cecom ) of Cologne,                          last only two years ( Article 190 , EC Treaty );
represented by Dietrich Ehle and Volker Schiller
( Rechtsanwalte ) of Cologne, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Lucius                              ( c ) disregard of the structure of the basic anti-dumping
( Rechtsanwalt), 6 Rue Michel Welter .                                       Regulation, especially the balance of rights and duties
                                                                             between the Community industry which has been
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                 injured and the dumping exporters and participating
                                                                             importers : when harmful dumping is established , the
— annul the second paragraph of Article 3 of Regulation                      rules require the Community industry to be protected
      ( EC ) No 2380/95 of 2 October 1995 ( OJ No L 244 ,                    for five years . That is balanced by Article 11 ( 3 ) of
      1995 , p. 1 ) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on               Regulation ( EC ) No 3283/94 , which gives exporters
      imports of plain paper photocopiers originating in Japan               and importers the possibility of requesting a review,
      in so far as it provides that the Regulation is to expire              and by Article 11 ( 8 ) of the same Regulation, whereby
      two years after its entry into force,                                  importers may request a refund of anti-dumping duties
                                                                             in certain circumstances;
— in the event of the claim being successful, and in so far as
      may be necessary, order that the anti-dumping duties
      introduced by Article 1 of Regulation ( EC ) No 2380/95          ( d ) the Community industry is prevented from effectively
      are to remain in force, even after the expiry of the                   defending and asserting its rights : if the validity of
      two-year period, until the relevant institutions have                  anti-dumping measures is limited to two years from
      taken the measures required by the judgment of the                     their entry into force, the injured Community industry
      Court,                                                                 is clearly hindered from making appropriate
                                                                             and successful use of its rights under Article 12
— order the Chamber to pay the costs of these                                 ( effects of anti-dumping duties ) and Article 13
      proceedings.                                                            ( anti-circumvention ) of Regulation ( EC ) No
                                                                              3283/94 .
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant maintains that the provision whereby the
 anti-dumping duties on photocopiers are to expire after two


title: Case C-252/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Pollution and nuisance — Combustion plants — Limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/11

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-252/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Pollution and nuisance - Combustion plants - Limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air)
   2009/C 282/20
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Republic of Malta (represented by: S. Camilleri, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 4(1) in conjunction with Annexes IV A, VI A and VII A, and of Article 12 in conjunction with Annexe VIII A.2 of Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants (OJ 2001 L 309, p. 1) — Non-compliance with the emission limit values laid down in respect of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust — Delimara and Marsa installations

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing correctly to apply Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants in relation to the operation of the Phase One steam plant of the Delimara and Marsa power stations, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 12 of that directive in conjunction with Part A of Annex IV, Part A of Annex VI, Part A of Annex VII and Part A.2 of Annex VIII thereto;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.08.2008.