title: Judgment of the Court of 12 July 2001 in Case C-368/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Mons): Abdon Vanbraekel and Others v Alliance nationale des mutualités chrétiennes (ANMC) (Social security — Sickness insurance — Articles 22 and 36 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Freedom to provide services — Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) — Hospital treatment costs incurred in another Member State — Refusal of authorisation subsequently declared unfounded)

text:
C 275/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          29.9.2001
—     Council Regulation (EC) No 2800/98 of 15 December                    European Communities, (Agents: J.-M. Stenier, J. Inghelram
      1998 on transitional measures to be applied under                    and P. Giusta) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
      the common agricultural policy with a view to the                    Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris
      introduction of the euro (OJ 1998 L 349, p. 8) and, more             (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet
      particularly, Articles 2 and 3 thereof;                              (Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen, F. Macken
                                                                           and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
—     Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December                    Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
      1998 establishing agrimonetary arrangements for the                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 July 2001, in which it:
      euro (OJ 1998 L 349, p. 1) and, more particularly,
      Articles 4 and 5 thereof and the annex thereto, in                   1.    Dismisses the appeal;
      particular paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof;
                                                                           2.    Orders Ismeri Europa Srl to pay the costs.
—     Commission Regulation (EC) No 2808/98 of 22 Decem-
      ber 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application
      of the agrimonetary system for the euro in agriculture (OJ           (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
      1998 L 349, p. 36); and
—     Commission Regulation (EC) No 2813/98 of 22 Decem-
      ber 1998 laying down detailed rules for applying the
      transitional measures for the introduction of the euro to
      the common agricultural policy (OJ 1998 L 349, p. 48),
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
(Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate                                             of 12 July 2001
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 5 July 2001, in which it:                          in Case C-368/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Cour du travail de Mons): Abdon Vanbraekel and
1.    Dismisses the application;                                           Others v Alliance nationale des mutualités chrétiennes
                                                                                (ANMC) (1)
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           (Social security — Sickness insurance — Articles 22 and 36
                                                                           of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Freedom to provide
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.                                                  services — Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-
                                                                           ment, Article 49 EC) — Hospital treatment costs incurred in
                                                                           another Member State — Refusal of authorisation sub-
                                                                                sequently declared unfounded)
                                                                                (2001/C 275/04)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                            10 July 2001                                                      in the European Court Reports)
in Case C-315/99 P: Ismeri Europa Srl v Court of Auditors                  In Case C-368/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
               of the European Communities (1)                             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour de
                                                                           travail de Mons (Higher Labour Court, Mons) Belgium for a
(Appeal — MED programmes — Special Report No 1/96 of                       preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
the Court of Auditors — Principle of the right to a hearing                court between Abdon Vanbraekel and Others and Alliance
— Naming of third parties — Necessity and proportionality)                 nationale des mutualités chrétiennes (ANMC) — on the
                                                                           interpretation of Articles 22 and 36 of Council Regulation
                          (2001/C 275/03)                                  (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
                                                                           social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           persons and to members of their families moving within the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Community, in the version amended and updated by Council
                   in the European Court Reports)                          Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230,
                                                                           p. 6), and of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
In Case C-315/99 P: Ismeri Europa Srl, established in Rome                 Article 49 EC) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
(Italy), represented by S. Ristuccia and G.L. Tosato, avvocati,            Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of              M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers),
the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 15 June 1999                   D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen
in Case T-277/97 Ismeri Europa v Court of Auditors [1999]                  and F. Macken, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
ECR II-1825) seeking to have that judgment set aside, the                  Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
other party to the proceedings being: Court of Auditors of the             on 12 July 2001, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 29.9.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 275/3
1.   Article 22(1)(c) and (i) of Council Regulation (EEC)                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of socia1
     security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons                                  (Sixth Chamber)
     and to members of their families moving within the Community,
     in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation                                          of 12 July 2001
     (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, is to be interpreted as
     meaning that, when an insured person has been authorised by            in Case C-399/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
     the competent institution to go to another Member State for            from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la
     treatment, the institution of the place where the treatment is         Lombardia): Ordine degli Architetti delle Province di
     provided is required to provide him with benefits in kind in                       Milano et Lodi v Comune di Milano (1)
     accordance with the rules on assumption of the costs of health
     care which the latter administers, as if the person concerned          (Public works contracts — Directive 93/37/EEC — National
     were registered with it.                                               legislation under which the holder of building or planning
                                                                            permission may execute infrastructure works directly in
     Where the request of an insured person for authorisation on the        lieu of tax — National legislation permitting the public
     basis of Article 22(1) (c) of that regulation as been refused by       authorities to negotiate directly with an individual the terms
     the competent institution and it is subsequently established that                   of administrative acts concerning him)
     such refusal was unfounded, the person concerned is entitled to
     be reimbursed directly by the competent institution by an                                        (2001/C 275/05)
     amount equivalent to that which would have been borne by the
     institution of the place of stay under the rules laid down by the                          (Language of the case: Italian)
     legislation applied by the latter institution if authorisation had
     been properly granted in the first place.                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
     As Article 22 of that regulation is not intended to regulate any
     reimbursement at the tariffs in force in the Member State of           In Case C-399/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
     registration, it does not have the effect of preventing or             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale
     prescribing payment by that State of additional reimbursement          Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Regional Admin-
     covering the difference between the system of cover laid down by       istrative Court of Lombardy) (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in
     the legislation of that State and the system applied by the            the proceedings pending before that court between Ordine
     Member State of stay, where the former is more advantageous            degli Architetti delle Province di Milano et Lodi, Piero De
     than the latter and such reimbursement is provided for by the          Amicis, Consiglio Nazionale degli Architetti, Leopoldo Freyrie
     legislation of the Member State of registration.                       and Comune di Milano, Interveners: Pirelli SpA, Milano
                                                                            Centrale Servizi SpA, Fondazione Teatro alla Scala, formerly
     Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49          Ente Autonomo Teatro alla Scala — on the interpretation of
     EC) is to be interpreted as meaning that, if the reimbursement         Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
     of costs incurred on hospital services provided in a Member            coordination of procedures far the award of public works
     State of stay, calculated under the rules in force in that State, is   contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
     less than the amount which application of the legislation in           composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
     force in the Member State of registration would afford to a            ris (Rapporteur), J-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
     person receiving hospital treatment in that State, additional          Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
     reimbursement covering that difference must be granted to the          for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001, the
     insured person by the competent institution.                           operative part of which is as follows:
2.   Article 36 of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended            Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
     and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, cannot be interpreted            coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts
     as meaning that it follows from that provision that a covered          precludes national urban development legislation under which, in
     person who has requested authorisation on the basis of                 disregard of the procedures laid down in the Directive, the holder of a
     Article 22(1)(c) of that regulation and been refused by the            building permit or planning permission may execute an infrastructure
     competent institution is entitled to reimbursement of all the          work directly, in return for exemption, wholly or in art, from the
     medical costs which he incurred in the Member State in which           charge payable upon such permission being granted, in cases where
     he received treatment once it is established that the rejection of     the value of that work is not less than the ceiling fixed by the
     his request for authorisation was unfounded.                           Directive.
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                                 (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.


21.12.2002             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 323/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Removal from the register of Case C-366/01 ( 1)
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to                              (2002/C 323/44)
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period        By order of 31 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
expired on 31 July 2001 without the United Kingdom having            of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the directive        register of Case C-366/01: Commission of the European
referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.                    Communities v Ireland.
( 1) OJ L 201, 31.07.1999, p. 77.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case C-404/95 ( 1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-370/01 ( 1)
                         (2002/C 323/43)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/45)
By order of 18 October 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     By order of 30 September 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-404/95: Federal Republic of
Germany v Commission of the European Communities.                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-370/01: Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities v Italian Republic.
( 1) OJ C 95 of 30.03.1996.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.


title: Case C-287/07: Action brought on 14 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/17

         Action brought on 14 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-287/07)
   (2007/C 211/33)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               1.

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 71 of that directive;
               In the alternative:

                           declare that, by failing to notify the Commission of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 71 of that directive;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2004/17/EC expired on 31 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1.


title: Case C-249/02: Action brought on 9 July 2002 by Portuguese Republic against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 219/4                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.9.2002
2.    Is it of importance as regards the acceptability of discon-              (b) If the answer to Question 3(a) is affirmative:
      tinuing the procedure that the content of the invitation
      to tender is defective because of the incorrectness of the                   How is the said reference in the third sentence of
      assessment previously made by the contracting authority?                     Article 16(1) of the TRIPS Agreement to existing
                                                                                prior rights to be interpreted in the case of a trade
                                                                                name which is not registered or established in the
( 1) OJ L 199, p. 1.                                                               State in which the trade mark is registered and in
                                                                                which protection is sought for the trade mark
                                                                                against the trade name in question, having regard to
                                                                                the obligation under Article 8 of the Paris Conven-
                                                                                tion to afford protection to a trade name regardless
                                                                                of whether it is registered and to the fact that the
                                                                                permanent appellate body of the WTO has regarded
                                                                                the reference in Article 2(1) of the TRIPS Agreement
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the korkein oikeus                           to Article 8 of the Paris Convention as meaning
by order of that Court of 3 July 2002 in the case                                  that WTO members are obliged under the TRIPS
of Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated against Budéjovický                               Agreement to protect trade names in accordance
                     Budvar, národní podnik                                        with the latter article? When assessing, in such a
                                                                                case, whether a trade name has a legal basis prior to
                                                                                a trade mark for the purposes of the third sentence
                          (Case C-245/02)                                          of Article 16(1) of the TRIPS Agreement, may it thus
                                                                                be considered as decisive:
                          (2002/C 219/07)                                          (i)   whether the trade name was well-known at
                                                                                least to some extent among the relevant trade
                                                                                circles, in the State in which the trade mark is
                                                                                registered and in which protection is sought
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                   for it, before the point in time at which
European Communities by order of the korkein oikeus                                      registration of the trade mark was applied for
(Supreme Court) of 3 July 2002, received at the Court Registry                           in the State in question; or
on 5 July 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated against Budéjovický Budvar,                          (ii)  whether the trade name was used in commerce
národní podnik on the following questions:                                               directed to the State in which the trade mark is
                                                                                registered and in which protection is sought
1.    If the collision of a trade mark and a sign alleged to                             for it before the point in time at which
      infringe it is situated at a point in time before the entry                        registration of the trade mark was applied for
      into force of the TRIPS Agreement, do the provisions of                            in the State in question; or
      the TRIPS Agreement apply to the question of which
      right has the earlier legal basis, when the alleged infringe-                (iii) what other factor may decide whether the trade
      ment of the trade mark is said to continue after the date                          name is to be regarded as an existing prior
      on which the TRIPS Agreement entered into force in the                             right within the meaning of the third sentence
      Community and the Member States?                                                   of Article 16(1) of the TRIPS Agreement?
2.    If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative:
      (a)   Can the trade name of an undertaking also act as a
            sign for goods or services within the meaning of
            the first sentence of Article 16(1) of the TRIPS
            Agreement?
                                                                         Action brought on 9 July 2002 by Portuguese Republic
                                                                             against Commission of the European Communities
      (b) If the answer to Question 2(a) is affirmative, on
            what conditions may a trade name be regarded as a
            sign for goods or services within the meaning of                                     (Case C-249/02)
            the first sentence of Article 16(1) of the TRIPS
            Agreement?                                                                           (2002/C 219/08)
3.    If the answer to Question 2(a) is affirmative:
      (a)   How is the reference in the third sentence of Article        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
            16(1) of the TRIPS Agreement to existing prior               ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
            rights to be interpreted? May the right to a trade           Communities on 9 July 2002 by the Portuguese Republic,
            name also be regarded as an existing prior right             represented by Luis Fernandes, acting as Agent, and Carlos
            within the meaning of the third sentence of Article          Botelho Moniz and Eduardo Maia Cadete, lawyers, with an
            16(1) of the TRIPS Agreement?                                address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 14.9.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 219/5
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             —       Plea of illegality: illegality of Article 49(5) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 445/2002 (4) in that it is contrary to the principle
                                                                                of non-retroactivity of legislative provisions: should the
—     annul the decision of 18 April 2002 of the Director                       contested measure be understood as having been adopted
      General of the Directorate General for Agriculture of the                 on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 rather than
      European Commission bearing reference number AGRI/                        of Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999, it would still be
      G/4-D11703, headed ‘Portugal — EAGGF — Guarantee                          defective on the ground that the scheme provided for by
      — 2002 — Application of Article 39(3) of Commission                       Article 49(5) of the former regulation is invalid. The new
      Regulation (EC) No 1750/99 ( 1) — Correction to                           wording of Article 49(5) of Regulation (EC) No 445/
      advances’;                                                                2002 provides, with retroactive effect, that the exemption
                                                                                from the penalty initially provided for in Article 39(3) of
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999 — which corresponds to
                                                                                the current Article 49(4) of Regulation (EC) No 445/2000
—     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
                                                                                — may be applied only to the expenditure declaration
                                                                                submitted in 2000. Nevertheless, despite having been
                                                                                submitted in time by the national authorities, the three
                                                                                RDPs for Portugal were not approved by the Commission
                                                                                until the 2001 financial year, thus rendering it materially
                                                                                and logically impossible for a declaration to be submitted
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 in 2000 for expenditure incurred in respect of pro-
                                                                                grammes which were not approved until the 2001
                                                                                financial year. The Commission’s aim in retrospectively
                                                                                amending the provision at issue was to prevent arbitrarily
—     Lack of competence:
                                                                                the application of the exemption under Article 39(4)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999, without the least,
                                                                                plausible, reason.
—     The Director General of the Directorate General for
      Agriculture does not possess the power to adopted a
      measure such as that at issue in the present case, so that,
      since he has not had any powers delegated to him, he has
      acted ultra vires.                                                —       Manifest error in the application of the scheme provided
                                                                                for in Article 49(4) of Regulation (EC) No 445/2002.
—     By basing the calculation for the reduction on a value
      which had not yet been approved by the Commission
      and which he himself fixed, the Director General exceeded         —       Breach of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons
      his powers, thus infringing Article 7(3) of Regulation No                 required by Article 253 of the EC Treaty.
      (EC) 1258/1999. (2)
—     Error in law: The contested decision does not have any
      legal basis whatever. It was approved on the basis of
      Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999 which was no longer in               (1 ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999 of 23 July 1999
      force at the time when it was approved.                                laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regu-
                                                                             lation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from
                                                                             the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
                                                                             (OJ 1999 L 214, p. 31).
—     Manifest error in the application of Article 39(4) of             (2 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the
      Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999: Even if it were accepted                 financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160,
      that Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999 applies in the present               p. 13).
      case, only 2001 may be regarded as the year in which was          (3 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on
      submitted the first declaration of expenditure incurred in             support for rural development from the European Agricultural
      respect of the rural development programming docu-                     Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and
                                                                             repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80).
      ments, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1257/
                                                                        (4 ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 of 26 February
      1999. ( 3) Funding for rural development for 2000 was                  2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council
      received by Portugal under the former common agricul-                  Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development
      tural policy accompanying measures for 1992. For that                  from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
      reason, by virtue of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1750/             (EAGGF) (OJ 2002 L 74, p. 1).
      1999, the penalties provided for in Article 3 of that
      regulation cannot be applied in respect of the 2001
      financial year.
—     Manifest error in the application of the scheme provided
      for in Article 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999.


title: Case T-179/16: Order of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SMOKY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER SMOKY — Prior national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly unfounded in law — Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/17

         Order of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SMOKY)
   (Case T-179/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER SMOKY - Prior national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly unfounded in law - Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure))
   (2017/C 269/24)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: L'Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Guinot (Paris) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2905/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               L’Oréal shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Namur by judgment of that court of 14 May 1997 in the case of Christelle Deliège v. ASBL Ligue Francophone de Judo et Disciplines Associées, ASBL Ligue Belge de Judo and François Pacquée (Case C-191/97)

text:
No C 212/ 18          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12 . 7 . 97
of the European Communities in Case T-35/96 between                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
L. B. Rasmussen and the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                — annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 408/97 of
the European Communities on 15 May 1997 by L. B.                          24 February 1997 on the conclusion of an Agreement
Rasmussen, represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the                         on cooperation in the sea fisheries sector between the
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                            European Community and the Islamic Republic of
Luxembourg at the Chambers of the latter, 180 Route de                    Mauritania and laying down provisions for its
Longwy.                                                                   implementation (*),
The appellant claims that the Court should:                           — order the Council to pay the costs .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
     18 March 1997 in Case T-35/96 (') in its entirety,               — Infringement of Article 228 of the EC Treaty: the
     including the ruling on costs,                                       Council could not conclude the agreement with
                                                                          Mauritania without first seeking and obtaining the
— annul the Commission's decision to annul the vacancy                    European Parliament's assent in accordance with the
     notice procedure for post COM/116/94,                                second subparagraph of Article 228 ( 3 ) of the EC
                                                                          Treaty. The agreement in question has important
                                                                          budgetary implications on account of the fact that the
— annul the decision to reserve the post at issue in that                 financial compensation provided for Mauritania alone
     vacancy notice for nationals of new Member States,                   amounts     to  a   share   in excess  of 20 %    of the
     and to publish a notice of Open Competition COM/A/                   appropriations under budget heading B7-8 0 0
     929 ( Head of Unit V.F.3 ),                                          ( International fisheries agreements ) provided for each
                                                                          financial year concerned hitherto .
— order the Commission to pay compensation for non                   — Breach of essential procedural requirements
     material damage,                                                     (consultation procedure not in compliance with the
                                                                          Treaty and no statement of reasons regarding the
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  Commission 's proposed amendment of the legal basis ).
                                                                      O OJ No L 62, 4 . 3 . 1997, p. 1 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Infringement of Articles 4, 5 , 7, 25 , 27, 29 and 45 of the
Staff Regulations, the principle of non-retroactivity, and of
the obligation to have due regard for the welfare of
officials, and misuse of powers, in that the Court of First           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
Instance gave faulty and insufficient reasoning in support            Première Instance de Namur by judgment of that court of
of provisions of the contested judgment and failed to reply           14 May 1997 in the case of Christelle Deliège v. ASBL
to arguments and pleas in law of the parties.                         Ligue Francophone de Judo et Disciplines Associées, ASBL
                                                                                Ligue Belge de Judo and François Pacquée
                                                                                ( Case C-191/97)
 n OJ No C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997, p . 14 .
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/33 )
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
                                                                      Premiere Instance de Namur ( Court of First Instance,
Action brought on 16 May 1997 by the European                         Namur) of 14 May 1997, which was received at the Court
   Parliament against the Council of the European Union               Registry on 20 May 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                      case of Christelle Deliege v. ASBL Ligue Francophone de
                         ( Case C-189/97 )
                                                                      Judo et Disciplines Associees, ASBL Ligue Beige de Judo
                           ( 97/C 212/32 )                            and Francois Pacquee on the following question :
                                                                      Whether or not it is contrary to the Treaty of Rome, in
 An action against the Council of the European Union was              particular Articles 59, 85 and 86 of the Treaty, to require
 brought before the Court of Justice of the European                  a professional or semi-professional athlete or a person
 Communities on 16 May 1997 by the European                           aspiring to professional or semi-professional activity to be
 Parliament, represented by Gregorio Garzon Clariana,                 authorized by his federation in order to be able to
 Jurisconsult, C. Pennera, Head of its Legal Service, and H.          compete in an international competition in which national
 Kriick, also of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an         teams are not taking part.
 address for service in Luxembourg at the European
 Parliament, Mail and Registry Service, Batiment Tour.


title: Case F-42/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 December 2007 — Asa Sundholm v Commission of the European Communities (Staff case — Officials — Appraisal — Career development report — Appraisal for the year 2004 — Objectives of and criteria for appraisal — Damages)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/53

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 December 2007 — Asa Sundholm v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-42/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Appraisal - Career development report - Appraisal for the year 2004 - Objectives of and criteria for appraisal - Damages)
   (2008/C 22/101)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Asa Sundholm (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by C. Berardis-Kayser and M. Velardo, Agents.)
   Re:
   Annulment of the applicant's career development report for the year 2004 and a claim for damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls Ms Sundholm's career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2004;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 131 of 3.6.2006, p. 54.


title: Case T-357/10: Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2012 — Kraft Foods Schweiz v OHIM — Compañía Nacional de Chocolates (CORONA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark CORONA — Earlier national word marks KARUNA and KARŪNA — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2012 — Kraft Foods Schweiz v OHIM — Compañía Nacional de Chocolates (CORONA)
   (Case T-357/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark CORONA - Earlier national word marks KARUNA and KARŪNA - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 227/27
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding GmbH (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Péters and T. de Haan, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Compañia Nacional de Chocolates, SA (Medellín, Colombia) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2010 (Case R 696/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding GmbH and Compañia Nacional de Chocolates, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 30 November 1995 in Case C-175/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal): The Queen v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte John Gallagher (Freedom of movement for persons - Derogations - Decisions concerning the control of foreign nationals - Decision ordering expulsion - Prior opinion of the competent authority)

text:
No C 31 /6          MEN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     3 . 2 . 96
     governing an archipelago forming part ofthe territory of               decision ordering expulsion before a competent
     that State require all petroleum product wholesalers                   authority has given its opinion.
     wishing to extend their activities to that part of the
     national territory to supply a certain number of islands
     in the archipelago, having regard to the problems of             2 . Article 9 (1 ) of Directive 64/221 /EEC does not preclude
     supplying insular regions.                                             the competent authority referred to in that provision
                                                                            from being appointed by the same administrative
                                                                            authority as takes the decision ordering expulsion,
2 . Such rules are compatible with Article 85, read in                      provided that the competent authority can perform its
     conjunction with the second paragraph ofArticle 5, and                 duties in absolute independence and is not subject to any
     with Article 30 of the EC Treaty.                                      control by the authority empowered to take the
                                                                            measures provided for in the Directive. It is for the
                                                                            national court to determine in each case whether those
3 . Article 102 (1 ) of the EC Treaty does not give rise to
     individual rights which the courts must protect.                       requirements have been met.
                                                                      ( 1 ) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
(') OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       ( Sixth Chamber )                                                        ( Fifth Chamber)
                    of 30 November 1995                                                    of 30 November 1995
in Case C-l 75/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                   in Case C-l 18/95 : Commission of the European
the Court of Appeal ): The Queen v. Secretary of State for the                       Communities v. Italian Republic ( J )
       Home Department, ex parte John Gallagher ( ] )                 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
(Freedom of movement for persons — Derogations —                      Directives 92/33/EEC and 92/34/EEC — Failure to
Decisions concerning the control of foreign nationals —                                               transpose)
Decision ordering expulsion — Prior opinion of the                                                 ( 96/C 31 / 12 )
                     competent authority)
                          ( 96/C 31 / 11 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-175/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Court of Appeal, London, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that             In Case C-l 18/95 : Commission of the European
court between The Queen and Secretary of State for the                Communities ( Agent: Eugenio de March ) v. Italian Republic
Home Department, ex parte John Gallagher — on the                     ( Agents : Umberto Leanza and Maurizio Fiorilli ) —
interpretation of Council Directive 64/22 1 /EEC of                   application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within
25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures              the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals            administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
which are justified on grounds of public policy, public               Directive 92/33/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the marketing of
security or public health ( OJ, English Special Edition               vegetable propagating and planting material, other than
 1963-1964, p. 117 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),                   seed ( OJ 1992 , No L 157, p. 1 ) and Council Directive
composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber,                  92/34/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the marketing of fruit plant
G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G.             propagating material and fruit plants intended for fruit
Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate                 production ( OJ 1992 , No L 157, p. 10 ), the Italian Republic
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has            has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the
given a judgment on 30 November 1995 , the operative part              Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward,
of which is as follows :                                              President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, C. Gulmann,
                                                                      P. Jann and L. Sevon ( Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cosmas,
                                                                       Advocate General ; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on
 1 . Article 9 (I ) of Council Directive 64/221 /EEC of                30 November 1995 the operative part of which is as
     25 February 1964 on the coordination of special                   follows :
     measures concerning the movement and residence of
     foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of
     public policy, public security or public health must be           1 . By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
     interpreted as meaning that, save in cases of urgency, it               administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     prohibits the administrative authority from taking a                    Council Directive 92/33/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the


title: Case T-301/13: Action brought on 28 May 2013 — Nordex Holding/OHIM — Fontana Food (Taverna MEDITERRANEAN WHITE CHEESE)

text:
               27.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 215/17

         Action brought on 28 May 2013 — Nordex Holding/OHIM — Fontana Food (Taverna MEDITERRANEAN WHITE CHEESE)
   (Case T-301/13)
   2013/C 215/25
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nordex Holding A/S (Dronninglund, Denmark) (represented by: M. Kleis, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the First Board of Appeal’s decision of 1 March 2013 in Case R 2604/2011-1;

               —

               Annul the Cancellation Division’s decision of 21 October 2011 No 4892 C, which preceded the adoption of the contested decision;

               —

               Order the Office to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Taverna MEDITERRANEAN WHITE CHEESE’ — Community trade mark registration No 3 600 285

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds of the request for a declaration of invalidity were those laid down in Articles 53(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested Community trade mark partially invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 53(1)(a) in conjunction with 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 January 2003 in Case C-388/01: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Free movement of services — Non-discrimination — Articles 12 EC and 49 EC — Admission to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeological digs, parks and gardens classified as public monuments — Preferential rates granted by local or decentralised State authorities)

text:
C 44/8                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             22.2.2003
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to       Community fishery law precludes a national law such as that in issue
      ensure the correct transposition of Articles 11 and 22(1) of           in the main proceedings, which prohibits, during a certain period, the
      Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on                    landing, on a part of the coastline of the Member State concerned, of
      the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative              scallops fished in the territorial waters of another Member State.
      provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of
      animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes, the
      Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations        (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
      under that directive;
2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 January 2003
          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                                             in Case C-388/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Italian Republic (1)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             (Failure to fulfil obligations — Free movement of services —
                        of 16 January 2003                                   Non-discrimination — Articles 12 EC and 49 EC —
                                                                             Admission to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeologi-
                                                                             cal digs, parks and gardens classified as public monuments
in Case C-265/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    — Preferential rates granted by local or decentralised State
the Tribunal de grande instance de Dinan): Annie Pansard                                                   authorities)
                             and Others (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/15)
(Origin of fishery products — Article 28 EC — National
law periodically prohibiting the landing of certain fishery
         products — Competence of the Member States)                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
                            (2003/C 44/14)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       In Case C-388/01, Commission of the European Communities
                   in the European Court Reports)                            (Agents: M. Patakia and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic (Agent:
                                                                             U. Leanza, assisted by M. Fiorilli): Application for a declaration
                                                                             that, by allowing discriminatory, advantageous rates for admis-
                                                                             sion to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeological digs,
                                                                             parks and gardens classified as public monuments, granted by
In Case C-265/01: reference to the Court under Article 234                   local or decentralised State authorities only in favour of Italian
EC from the Tribunal de grande instance de Dinan, France, for                nationals and persons resident within the territory of those
a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Annie               authorities running the cultural sites in question, who are aged
Pansard and Others, en présence du Comité Region pêches                      over 60 or 65 years, and by excluding from such advantages
maritimes, a party to the main proceedings — on the                          tourists who are nationals of other Member States and non-
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of                     residents who fulfil the same objective age requirements, the
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code                      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
(OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Article 28 EC — the Court of Justice               Articles 12 EC and 49 EC, the Court (Sixth Chamber),
(Sixth Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of                  composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
the Chamber, and C. Gulmann, F. Macken (Rapporteur),                         R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
N. Colneric, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate               (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass,
General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a              Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January 2003, in which
judgment on 16 January 2003, in which it ruled that:                         it:
 ---pagebreak--- 22.2.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 44/9
1.    Declares that, by allowing discriminatory, advantageous rates           1.    In the case of transport by more than one driver, Article 8(2) of
      for admission to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeological                Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on the harmonisation
      digs, parks and gardens classified as public monuments, granted               of certain social legislation relating to road transport applies as
      by local or decentralised State authorities only in favour of                 a lex specialis that prevails over paragraph 1 of that article.
      Italian nationals and persons resident within the territory of                Consequently, those provisions are not to be applied cumulat-
      those authorities running the cultural sites in question, who are             ively.
      aged over 60 or 65 years, and by excluding from such
      advantages tourists who are nationals of other Member                   2.    The same interpretation applies to Article 8(1) and (2) of the
      States and non-residents who fulfil the same objective age                    European Agreement concerning the Work of Crews of Vehicles
      requirements, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its                   engaged in International Road Transport (AETR).
      obligations under Articles 12 EC and 49 EC;
                                                                              3.    It is for the national court to determine, having regard to the
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                 facts of the main proceedings, whether it is appropriate to apply
                                                                                the provisions of Regulation No 3820/85 or those of that
                                                                                agreement.
( 1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
                                                                              4.    Examination of Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation No 3820/
                                                                                85 in the light of the principle of legal certainty has failed to
                                                                                disclose any matters of such a kind as to affect its validity.
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                         of 16 January 2003
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-439/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederöster-
reich): Libor Cipra Vlastimil Kvasnicka v Bezirk-                                                        (Fifth Chamber)
                shauptmannschaft Mistelbach (1)
                                                                                of 16 January 2003
(Road transport — Social legislation — Regulation (EEC)
No 3820/85 — Breaks and rest periods — Crew consisting                        in Case C-462/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
of more than one driver — Jurisdiction of the Court                                    the Halmstads tingsrätt): Ulf Hammarsten ( 1)
to interpret the AETR Agreement — Principle of legal
                               certainty)
                                                                              (Common organisation of the markets in the flax and hemp
                                                                              sector — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — National legislation
                            (2003/C 44/16)                                    prohibiting all cultivation and possession of hemp without
                                                                                prior authorisation)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/17)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-439/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                                        in the European Court Reports)
EC by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederös-
terreich (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Libor Cipra Vlastimil
Kvasnicka and Bezirkshauptmannschaft Mistelbach, on the                       In Case C-462/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
interpretation and validity of Article 8(1) and (2) of Council                EC by the Halmstads tingsrätt (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling
Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the                        in criminal proceedings before it against Ulf Hammarsten on
harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road                  the interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and of
transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                   the Community legislation applicable to the cultivation and
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,                           marketing of hemp, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas                        M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La
(Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,                   Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January 2003, in which                  Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
it has ruled:                                                                 judgment on 16 January 2003, in which it has ruled:


title: Case F-23/13: Action brought on 20 March 2013 — ZZ and Others v Commission

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/55

         Action brought on 20 March 2013 — ZZ and Others v Commission
   (Case F-23/13)
   2013/C 156/102
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision transmitting the definitive calculation of the annuities for the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights to the European Union pension scheme under the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions transferring their pension rights acquired before their entry into service at the Commission;

               —

               In so far as necessary, annul the decisions rejecting the claims relating to the application of the GIP and the actuarial rates in force at the time of their application for transfer of their pension rights;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-231/01: Action brought on 25 September 2001 by Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Excma. Diputación de Vizcaya, and the Comunidad autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco against Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.11.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 331/31
4/1998 of 2 December 1998, which provide for a tax credit               Action brought on 25 September 2001 by Territorio
of 45 % of the investment in new fixed material assets in               Histórico de Vizcaya — Excma. Diputación de Vizcaya,
excess of ESP 2 500 million (EUR 15 025 303 ) made by                   and the Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco — Gobierno
undertakings in the Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya.                   Vasco against Commission of the European Communities
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the                                           (Case T-231/01)
applicants are identical with those put forward in Case
T-227/01.
                                                                                (2001/C 331/51)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
Action brought on 25 September 2001 by Territorio
Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Excma. Diputación de Guipúz-
coa, and the Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco —                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Gobierno Vasco against Commission of the European                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                          Communities                                   European Communities on 25 September 2001 by the Territo-
                                                                        rio Histórico de Vizcaya — Excma. Diputación de Vizcaya, and
                         (Case T-229/01)                                the Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco — Gobierno Vasco,
                                                                        Vizcaya (Spain), represented by Ramón Falcón, lawyer.
                         (2001/C 331/50)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     which is contested in this action, in the alternative, annul
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    Article 3 of that decision,
European Communities on 25 September 2001 by the Territo-
rio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Excma. Diputación de Guipúz-
coa, and the Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco — Gobierno             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Vasco, Guipúzcoa (Spain), represented by Ramón Falcón,
lawyer.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission
      which is contested in this action, in the alternative, annul
      Article 3 of that decision,
                                                                        The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2001)
                                                                        1763 final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        common market the tax reductions arising from Article 26 of
                                                                        Norma Foral (Regional Law) No 3/1996 of 26 June 1996, on
                                                                        corporation tax, which provides for a reduction of 99 %,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         75 %, 50 % and 25 % of the basis for assessment of the
                                                                        aforementioned tax applicable during the four first tax years
                                                                        for undertakings which set up business in the Territorio
The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2001)                      Histórico de Vizcaya with effect from the entry into force of
1764 final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the              the Law, provided that they have disbursed capital amounting
common market the tax reductions arising from the 10th                  to more than ESP 20 million (EUR 120 202 ), invest more
addendum to Norma Foral (Regional Law) No 7/1997 of                     than ESP 80 million (EUR 430 810 ) and create more than
22 December 1997, which provides for a tax credit of 45 % of            10 new jobs.
the investment in new fixed material assets in excess of
ESP 2 500 million (EUR 15025303) made by undertakings in
the Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa.
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
                                                                        applicants are identical with those put forward in Case
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the                  T-227/01.
applicants are identical with those put forward in Case
T-227/01.


title: Case C-362/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 25 July 2014 — Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 25 July 2014 — Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner
   (Case C-362/14)
   2014/C 351/06
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maximillian Schrems

      Defendant: Data Protection Commissioner

      Questions referred

               1.

               Whether in the course of determining a complaint which has been made to an independent office holder who has been vested by statute with the functions of administering and enforcing data protection legislation that personal data is being transferred to another third country (in this case, the United States of America) the laws and practices of which, it is claimed, do not contain adequate protections for the data subject, that office holder is absolutely bound by the Community finding to the contrary contained in Commission Decision of 26 July 2000 (2000/520/EC (1)) having regard to Article 7, Article 8 and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000/C 364/01 (2)), the provisions of Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC (3) notwithstanding?

               2.

               Or, alternatively, may and/or must the office holder conduct his or her own investigation of the matter in the light of factual developments in the meantime since that Commission Decision was first published?

      (1)  Commission Decision of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce (notified under document number C(2000) 2441)

      OJ L 215, p. 7

      (2)  Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union

      OJ C 364, p. 1

      (3)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data

      OJ L 281, p. 31


title: Case T-335/05: Action brought on  5 September 2005  by Susanne Sorensen v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/26

         Action brought on 5 September 2005 by Susanne Sorensen v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-335/05)
   (2005/C 296/57)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties:

      Applicant(s): Susanne Sorensen (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision appointing the applicant to the post of assistant, in that it fixes her classification in grade B*3, step 2;

               —

               annul the decision to cancel all the points constituting the applicant's ‘rucksack’;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official of the Commission, had initially been classified in grade C2. she was successful in open competition COM/B/1/02 (at level B5/B4) and was appointed, by the contested decision of 5 August 2004, in grade B*3, step 2. In support of her action, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of the competition notice and also of the vacancy notice, in so far as both notices provided for classification in grade B5 or B4. She claims, in the same context, that there has been a breach of Articles 4, 5, 29 and 31 of the Staff Regulations. Relying on the fact that some successful candidates in the competition were appointed before 1 May 2004 (the date of the entry into force of the amendments to the Staff Regulations) in grade B5 or B4, which correspond to grade B*5 or B*6 under the new denomination, the applicant also claims that there has been a breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. She also contends that the principle that an official should have reasonable career prospects and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations have been breached, since she had a legitimate expectation of being appointed in grade B*5 or B*4. In that context, she claims that Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, which also breaches the principle of legal certainty, is unlawful.


title: Case T-257/11: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015  — Pangyrus v OHIM — RSVP Design (COLOURBLIND) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark COLOURBLIND — Word sign COLOURBLIND — Absolute ground for refusal — No bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Pangyrus v OHIM — RSVP Design (COLOURBLIND)
   (Case T-257/11) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark COLOURBLIND - Word sign COLOURBLIND - Absolute ground for refusal - No bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 118/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pangyrus Ltd (York, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Clubb, Solicitor, and M. Lindsay QC)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: RSVP Design Ltd (Brookfield, United Kingdom) (represented initially by M. Blair, and subsequently by J. MacKenzie, Solicitors)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 March 2011 (Case R 751/2009-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Pangyrus Ltd and RSVP Design Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Pangyrus Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


20150731061617122015/C 270/433052015TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150605343522Case T-305/15: Action brought on 5 June 2015 — Airdata v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN3420120150605EN0043342352Action brought on 5 June 2015 — Airdata v Commission
   (Case T-305/15)2015/C 270/43Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Airdata AG (Leinfelden-Echterdingen, Germany) (represented by: E. Niitväli and M. Reysen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the Commission decision C(2014) 4443 final, published on 13 March 2015, dated 2 July 2014, adopted in matter M.7018 Telefonica Deutschland/E-Plus pursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (
                  1
               ), and

            —

            order the Commission to pay the costs of the procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision suffers from the breach of an important procedural duty as defined in Article 296(2) TFEU, as the Commission has failed to provide adequate reason for the measure it has adopted.

                     —

                     The Commission failed to provide sufficiently clear and comprehensive reasons for its decision to accept certain commitments aimed at offsetting the serious competitive concerns it had identified in the course of the merger control investigation. The decision failed in particular to provide reasons why the Commission assumes that a third party beneficiary of the commitments would be able to effectively compete with the assets in question.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed in its duty to correctly apply the law as its decision suffers from a substantively incorrect application of EU merger control provisions.

                     —

                     Parts of the commitments will most likely not be implemented, and parts will merely preserve the status quo ante, but they won’t contribute to an increased intensity of competition. The remaining parts are insufficient to offset the serious harm to competition caused by the transaction in question.

      (
         1
      )	Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).


title: Joined Cases T-5/08 to T-7/08: Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2010 — Nestlé v OHIM — Master Beverage Industries (Golden Eagle and Golden Eagle Deluxe) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community marks Golden Eagle and Golden Eagle Deluxe — Earlier international and national figurative marks representing a mug and coffee beans — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2010 — Nestlé v OHIM — Master Beverage Industries (Golden Eagle and Golden Eagle Deluxe)
   (Joined Cases T-5/08 to T-7/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community marks Golden Eagle and Golden Eagle Deluxe - Earlier international and national figurative marks representing a mug and coffee beans - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 134/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by A. von Mühlendahl, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by R. Pethke, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Master Beverage Industries Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by N. Clarembeaux, D. Vervaet and P. Maeyaert, lawyers)

      Re:

   Actions brought against three decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2007 (Cases R 563/2006-2, R 568/2006-2 and R 1312/2006-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Société des produits Nestlé SA and Master Beverage Industries Pte Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 October 2007 (Cases R 563/2006-2, R 568/2006-2 and R 1312/2006-2);

               2.

               Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM and Master Beverage Industries Pte Ltd to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by Société des produits Nestlé SA.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case C-327/06: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2002/14/EC — Establishment of a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/14

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-327/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2002/14/EC - Establishment of a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2007/C 95/24)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and L. Pignataro, acting as Agents, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, acting as Agent, and M. Massella Ducci Teri, lawyer)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to take all the measures necessary, within the period prescribed, to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Joint Declaration of the European Parliament and of the Council and the Commission on the representation of workers (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, within the period prescribed, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 224 of 16.9.2006.


title: Case C-156/05: Action brought on 5 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/18

         Action brought on 5 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-156/05)
   (2005/C 132/34)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Eleni Tserepa-Lacombe and Nicola Yerrell, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, to notify to the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/34/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000 amending Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities excluded from that Directive, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               2.

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the Directive into national law expired on 1 August 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 195, 1.8.2000, p. 41.


title: Case T-201/16: Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Soudal v Commission

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/27

         Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Soudal v Commission
   (Case T-201/16)
   (2016/C 232/36)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Soudal NV (Turnhout, Belgium) (represented by: H. Viaene, B. Hoorelbeke, D. Gillet and F. Verhaegen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the application for annulment admissible;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 January 2016 on the excess-profit-exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium, as notified to the applicant by the Belgian State on 23 February 2016;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant invokes four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 (1), Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 296 TFEU, to the extent that the Commission incorrectly classifies the contested measure as an aid measure.

                           —

                           The Commission infringes Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 and Article 107(1) TFEU since it incorrectly classifies the contested measure as an aid measure. The contested aid cannot be allocated on the sole basis of Article 185(2)(b) of the Wetboek van inkomstenbelastingen van 1992 (Belgian Income Tax Code of 1992), but requires additional implementing measures in order for that provision to be applied.

                           —

                           The Commission infringes Article 296 TFEU in that its reasoning is contradictory. The contradiction lies in the fact that the Commission does not explain why, when assessing the criterion of selectivity, it takes the view that the previous decisions do not stem directly from Article 185(2)(b) of the Wetboek van inkomstenbelastingen van 1992, whereas it assumes, in assessing the existence of an aid measure, that the provision referred to does not require any additional implementing measures.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and breach of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, to the extent that the Commission did not correctly assess the existence of an advantage and did not apply the private-investor principle.

                           —

                           The Commission failed to investigate whether the contested aid measure actually led to the conferral of an advantage, for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, on the recipient undertakings. This was in spite of the fact that that condition is a prerequisite for State aid, and that the Commission is thus required to examine it before deciding on whether State aid exists, failing which it will be in breach of its obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU.

                           —

                           The Belgian State, in attributing the contested ruling to the applicant, conducted itself purely as an economic operator in the market economy. The Belgian State thereby invested a sum of money in the applicant, in the form of the grant of tax relief, from which, on the basis of the conditions imposed on the applicant, it could expect to be able to make significant economic returns. Given that the private-investor test is not an exception to be applied by the Commission solely at the request of the Member State in question, the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU and breached its obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU in failing to investigate whether or not the private-investor test was satisfied.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and breach of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, to the extent that the Commission did not correctly assess whether the contested measure was selective in nature.

                           —

                           Article 185(2)(b) of the Wetboek van de inkomstenbelastingen van 1992 and the excess profit exemption system arising out of it are open to all undertakings in a comparable factual and legal situation which conduct the economic transactions that are the object of the contested measure. The contested measure is therefore not restricted to specific undertakings that can be defined according to particular features, and is thus not selective for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU.

                           —

                           The Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that the exemption of excess profit did not form part of the reference system. The exemption of excess profit on the basis of synergies and economies of scale in application of the arm’s length principle is a key component of the provisions that determine total taxable income, and thus cannot be regarded as constituting a derogation from the reference system leading to selectivity.

                           —

                           The Commission is unable to prove that the arm’s length principle was incorrectly applied by the Belgische Rulingcommissie (Belgian Ruling Committee) in the context of applying Article 185(2)(b) of the Wetboek van de inkomstenbelastingen van 1992. The Commission’s reasoning is not coherent and takes into account important factors which are, however, contradictory or lack the necessary coherence.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, based on the contention that the obligation to recover infringes the principle of legal certainty.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).


title: Case C-405/07 P: Appeal brought on 3 September 2007 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) on 27 June 2007 in Case T-182/06 Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/33

         Appeal brought on 3 September 2007 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) on 27 June 2007 in Case T-182/06 Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-405/07 P)
   (2007/C 269/57)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: D.J.M. de Grave and C.M. Wissels, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               Refer the case back to the Court of First Instance in order that it may rule on the other pleas in law;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant puts forward two pleas in support of its appeal.
   By its first plea, the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance misconstrued the duty of care and the duty to give reasons pursuant to Article 253 EC in ruling that the Commission had not breached those duties in the case where relevant information supplied by the Member State concerned prior to the contested decision (1) was, without specific reasons, left out of account in that decision.
   By its second plea, the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance applied incorrect legal criteria when it ruled, in the context of the examination into whether there was a specific problem within the terms of Article 95(5) EC, that:

               (i)

               the existence of a specific problem with regard to air quality must be examined solely on the basis of the criteria in Directive 1999/30/EC (2), without the impossibility for a Member State to adopt measures designed to prevent cross-border pollution and criteria such as high demographic density, vehicle traffic intensity in many areas and the location of residential areas along traffic routes being capable of having relevance in that regard; and

               (ii)

               there can be no question of a specific problem in the aforementioned sense if a very small number of Member States also are experiencing a problem in connection with air quality.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2006/372/EC of 3 May 2006 concerning draft national provisions notified by the Kingdom of the Netherlands under Article 95(5) of the EC Treaty laying down limits on the emissions of particulate matter by diesel-powered vehicles (OJ 2006 L 142, p. 16).

      (2)  Council Directive of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (OJ 1999 L 163, p. 41).