title: Case C-543/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Refcomp SpA v Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance SA, Axa France IARD, Emerson Network, Climaveneta SpA (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Interpretation of Article 23 — Jurisdiction clause in a contract concluded between the manufacturer and the initial buyer of goods — Contract forming part of a chain of contracts transferring ownership — Whether that clause may be relied on against the sub-buyer of the goods)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Refcomp SpA v Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance SA, Axa France IARD, Emerson Network, Climaveneta SpA
   (Case C-543/10) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Interpretation of Article 23 - Jurisdiction clause in a contract concluded between the manufacturer and the initial buyer of goods - Contract forming part of a chain of contracts transferring ownership - Whether that clause may be relied on against the sub-buyer of the goods)
   2013/C 108/02
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Refcomp SpA

      Defendants: Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance SA, Axa France IARD, Emerson Network, Climaveneta SpA

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Article 5(1) and 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract — Dispute between the sub-buyer of goods and the manufacturer — Scope of the jurisdiction clause in a chain of contracts under Community law

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a jurisdiction clause agreed in the contract concluded between the manufacturer of goods and the buyer thereof cannot be relied on against a sub-buyer who, in the course of a succession of contracts transferring ownership concluded between parties established in different Member States, purchased the goods and wishes to bring an action for damages against the manufacturer, unless it is established that that third party has actually consented to that clause under the conditions laid down in that article.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.


title: Case T-503/10: Action brought on 21 October 2010 — IDT Biologika v Commission

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/54

         Action brought on 21 October 2010 — IDT Biologika v Commission
   (Case T-503/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/106
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: IDT Biologika GmbH (Dessau-Roßlau, Germany) (represented by: R. Gross and T. Kroupa, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 10 August 2010 rejecting the tender submitted in respect of Lot No 1 by IDT Biologika GmbH in response to the call for tenders (reference EuropeAid/129809/C/SUP/RS) for the supply of rabies vaccines to the beneficiary Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Supply of the Republic of Serbia, and awarding the contract to a consortium of various firms led by ‘Biovet a.s.’;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant challenges the European Commission’s decision of 10 August 2010 to choose a tenderer other than the applicant in the context of a call for tenders for the supply of rabies vaccines (publication reference EuropeAid/129809/C/SUP/RS).
   In support of its claim, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 252(3) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002, (1) in that the chosen tender does not satisfy the technical requirements specified in the tender dossier with regard to the requisite non-virulence to humans of the vaccines offered or with regard to the requisite authorisations and should, therefore, necessarily have been disregarded.
   Further, the applicant alleges infringement of the principles of equal treatment and transparency under Article 89(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, (2) since the applicant’s tender alone satisfies all the requirements with regard to the technical specifications and yet another tender was chosen.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).


title: Appeal brought on 27 April 1995 by Vereniging van Samenwerkende Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid (SPO) and 28 others against the judgment delivered on 21 February 1995 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-29/92 between Vereniging van Samenwerkende Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid (SPO) and 28 others and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-137/95 P)

text:
 22 . 7. 95                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 189/7
— Question 3 :                                                           Appeal brought on 27 April 1995 by Vereniging
                                                                         van Samenwerkende Prijsregelende Organisaties in de
       If questions 1 and 2a to 2d are answered to the effect that       Bouwnijverheid ( SPO ) and 28 others against the judgment
       set-off is in general possible, or possible subject to            delivered on 21 February 1995 by the Court of First Instance
       certain conditions , is Article 15 ( 3 ) of Council               of the European Communities in Case T-29/92 between
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992                     Vereniging van Samenwerkende Prijsregelende Organisaties
       establishing a support system for producers of certain            in de Bouwnijverheid ( SPO ) and 28 others and the
       arable crops (*) to be interpreted as meaning that a                        Commission of the European Communities
       Member State is precluded from requiring a national                                        Case C-137/95 P )
       intervention agency to effect set-off in the case of a
       beneficiary of compensatory payments with outstanding                                        ( 95/C 189/14
       debts to the State which could otherwise be involved in
       set-off ?                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 21 February
                                                                         1 995 by the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities in Case T-29/92 between Vereniging van
— Question 4 :
                                                                         Samenwerkende Prijsregelende Organisaties in de
       Is Article 10 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1765/92 to be        Bouwnijverheid ( SPO ) and 28 others and the Commission
       interpreted as meaning that the sums of compensation              of the European Communities was brought before the
       in question are to be paid over immediately the                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 April
       intervention agency has concluded the procedure                   1995 by Vereniging van Samenwerkende Prijsregelende
       with regard to the beneficiary's application, or is it            Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid ( SPO ) and 28 others ,
       permissible to delay the payment for an investigation as          represented by L. H. van Lennep, of The Hague Bar, and
       to whether the State has outstanding claims against the           E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an
       beneficiary in respect of which it wishes to effect a             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L.
       set-off, provided always that the payment is effected at          Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume .
       the latest by 31 December of the relevant support                 The appellants claim that the Court should :
       year ?
                                                                         — set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
 f 1 ) OJ No L 181 , 1 . 7 . 1992 , p . 12 .                                 the European Communities of 21 February 1995 in Case
                                                                             T-29/92 ( l ),
                                                                         — annul, wholly or at least in part, Commission Decision
                                                                             92/204/EEC of 5 February 1992 relating to a proceeding
                                                                             pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( IV/31.572 and
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de                          32.571 — Building and construction industry in the
Cassation Française ( Chambre Sociale ) by judgment of                       Netherlands ),
28 March 1995 in the case of Caisse Nationale d'Assurance
Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés ( CNAVTS ) v. Evelyne              — order the Commission to pay the costs of the
                                 Thibault                                    proceedings before the Court of First Instance and of
                            ( Case C-136/95 )
                                                                             the appeal .
                               95/C 189/ 13 )                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        — Infringement and/or misapplication of Articles 85 ( 3 ),
                                                                             173 and/or 190 of the EC Treaty and/or of Article 9 ( 1 )
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de
                                                                             of Regulation No 17/62 , and in any event of the general
Cassation Française ( Chambre Sociale ) ( French Court of
                                                                             principles of Community law requiring reasons to be
Cassation, Social Affairs Chamber ) of 28 March 1995 ,
                                                                             given for (judicial ) decisions, alternatively of the right to
which was received at the Court Registry on 28 April 1995 ,
                                                                             a fair hearing, in that the Court of First Instance wrongly
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Caisse Nationale                     considered and decided the matters stated and set forth
d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés ( CNAVTS )
                                                                             in paragraphs 266 , 267, 286 to 300 inclusive and 310 to
v. Evelyne Thibault on the following question:
                                                                             314 inclusive of its contested judgment, since, in thus
                                                                             considering and ruling on the case in the course of its
Must Articles 1 ( 1 ), 2 ( 1 ), 5 ( 1 ) and, if relevant, 2 (4 ) of          review of the evaluation by the Commission of the
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                       appellants ' application for exemption, the Court of First
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men                   Instance :
and women as regards access to employment, vocational
training and promotion, and working conditions ( ! ) be                      ( a ) limited its review of the legality of the decision of the
interpreted as meaning that a woman may not be deprived                            Commission to the Commission's appraisal of the
of the right to an assessment of performance, and                                  rules in the light of the second and third conditions
consequently to the possibility of an advancement in career,                       of exemption contained in Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EC
on the ground that she was absent from work by reason of                           Treaty, without establishing the benefits and
maternity leave ?                                                                  objectives of those rules, and consequently without
                                                                                determining the relevant facts needing to be
H OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .                                            established for the purposes of an assessment in the
                                                                                light of the second and third conditions contained in
                                                                                Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty;
 ---pagebreak--- No C 189/8             lEN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         22 . 7 . 95
   ( b ) ruled that the Commission correctly decided in law                              that the Commission concluded that the former
          that the rules were incapable of allowing consumers                            infringement(s ) had been committed deliberately
          a fair share of the benefits resulting from them,                              or, at the very least, through serious negligence,
          basing that ruling on considerations which are                                 whereas it found that the latter infringement(s ) had
          inherently contradictory and incomprehensible and                              been committed intentionally or at least negligently;
          on the assumption, incompatible with Article 5 ( 3 )                           and/or
          of the EC Treaty, that ( i ) for the purposes of
          assessing the competition rules in the light of the                     (c ) held, contrary to the relevant facts and matters
          second condition laid down in Article 85 ( 3 ),                                established by it and the provisions of Article 4 ( 2 )
          macroeconomic benefits are of no relevance, and/or                             of Regulation No 17/62, that the applicants could
          (ii ) that the second condition in Article 85 ( 3 ) can be                     have had no doubt in the circumstances that their
          regarded as satisfied only where the benefits under                            rules fell within the scope of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the
          consideration accrue without distinction to all                                Treaty, and that the relatively benevolent attitude of
          consumers ;                                                                    the Netherlands authorities regarding the rules
                                                                                should have encouraged the applicants to notify the
                                                                                rules to the Commission with a view to obtaining an
   (c ) ruled that the restrictions on competition resulting                             exemption .
          from the rules are not indispensable to the
          attainment of the objectives pursued by those rules,
          thereby substituting its own assessment of the rules             (!) OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 , p . 8 .
          in the light of Article 8 5 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty for that
          of the Commission, contrary to Article 173 of
          the EC Treaty and Article 9 ( 1 ) of Regulation
          No 17/62 .
— Infringement and/or misapplication of Community law,                     Appeal brought on 2 May 1995 by Campo Ebro Industrial
   particularly Article 85 of the EC Treaty, Articles 4                    SA, Levantina Agricola Industrial SA, and Cerestar Iberica
   and/or 15 of Regulation No 17/62 and/or Article 190 of                  SA, against the judgment delivered on 21 February 1995 by
   the EC Treaty, and in any event of the general principles               the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
   of Community law concerning the giving of reasons for                   European Communities in Case T-472/93 between Campo
    (judicial) decisions, legal certainty and legal protection             Ebro Industrial SA, Levantina Agricola Industrial SA, and
   and/or proportionality, in that, in rejecting the                       Cerestar Iberica SA, and the Council of the European
   applicants' plea as to the absence of any element of                    Union, supported by the Commission of the European
   intention or negligence in the infringements found by                                           Communities , intervener
   the Commission to have been committed by the                                                       ( Case C-138/95 P)
   undertakings concerned and as to the disproportionality
   of the fine imposed in that regard, the Court of First                                                ( 95/C 189/15 )
   Instance wrongly considered and decided the matters
   stated and set forth in paragraphs 346 to 388 inclusive of              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 21 February
   its contested judgment, since, in thus considering and                  1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
   ruling on the determination by the Commission of the                    the European Communities in Case T-472/93 between
   gravity of the infringements established by it, within the              Campo Ebro Industrial SA, Levantina Agricola Industrial
   meaning of Article 15 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17/62, the                 SA, and Cerestar Iberica SA, and the Council of the
   Court of First Instance :
                                                                           European Union, supported by the Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities, intervener, was brought before the
    (a ) failed to verify the extent to which the Commission               Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 May
          decided      in   each  instance       that   a  deliberate      1995 by Campo Ebro Industrial SA, Levantina Agricola
          infringement, alternatively a (culpably ) negligent              Industrial SA, and Cerestar Iberica SA, represented by Paul
          contravention, had been committed, and thus                      Glazener, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service
          ignored the fact that, as is apparent from                       in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Me Carlos Zeyen, 67
                                                                           Rue Ermesinde .
          Article 15 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17/62, the
          difference between intentional and negligent acts is
          a decisive factor for the purposes of determining the            The appellants claim that the Court should:
          gravity of the breach and thus fixing the amount of
          the fine(s ) to be imposed on the undertaking(s )
          concerned; and/or                                                  ( i ) annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance, in so
                                                                                far as the Court of First Instance rejected the claim for
                                                                                damages; and
    ( b ) disregarded the fact that the Commission drew a
           distinction in that regard between one or more                   (ii ) order the Community to make good the damage
          infringements of the UPR rules and one or                                  suffered by the applicants as a result of Regulation
           more infringements committed over a period                                 ( EEC ) No 3814/92 of 28 December 1992 (*) and to
          going back at least to 1 October 1980, and                                 assess the damages at ECU 3 444 403 for Campo


title: Case C-122/07: Order of the Court of 29 November 2007 — Eurostrategies SPRL v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Order for removal from the Register — Discontinuance — Costs)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/14

         Order of the Court of 29 November 2007 — Eurostrategies SPRL v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-122/07) (1)

   (Appeals - Order for removal from the Register - Discontinuance - Costs)
   (2008/C 64/21)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Eurostrategies SPRL (represented by: R. Lang and S. Crosby, Solicitors)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and I. Hadjiyiannis, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 1 December 2006 in Case T-203/06 Eurostrategies SPRL v Commission of the European Communities removing the case from the register of the Court of First Instance and ordering the applicant to pay the costs.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Eurostrategies SPRL is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-421/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel by order of that court of  21 November 2005  in N.V. City Motors Groep v N.V. Citroën Belux

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel by order of that court of 21 November 2005 in N.V. City Motors Groep v N.V. Citroën Belux
   (Case C-421/05)
   (2006/C 36/42)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel (Commercial Court, Brussels) of 21 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 29 November 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between N.V. City Motors Groep and N.V. Citroën Belux on the following question:
   Is Article 3(6) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 (1) of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicles sector to be interpreted as precluding an express termination provision in a motor vehicle concession agreement that is intended to benefit from the exemption?

      (1)  OJ L 203, p. 30.


title: Case C-204/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 78/686/EEC — Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications — Practitioners of dentistry — Measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/11

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-204/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 78/686/EEC - Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications - Practitioners of dentistry - Measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2007/C 56/19)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Walkerová and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: T. Boček, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have transposed, within the prescribed period, Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (OJ 1978 L 233, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               (1)

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24 of that directive.

               (2)

               Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.


title: Case T-452/14: Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/62

         Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission
   (Case T-452/14)
   2014/C 253/84
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratoires CTRS (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Utges Manley and M. Vickers, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1 of the contested decision, in so far as the decision in substance indicates that Cholic Acid FGK is authorised for the Orphacol Indications; or in the alternative annul Article 1 of the decision in its entirety; and

               —

               order that the Commission pays the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant is the marketing authorisation holder of the orphan medicinal product Orphacol, which is authorised for the treatment of two very rare and serious genetic liver disorders and whose active ingredient is cholic acid. Orphacol benefits as of 16 September 2013 from a 10-year period of market exclusivity in respect of these two indications in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation No 141/2000 (1).
   By the contested decision dated 4 April 2014, the Commission granted a marketing authorisation for another orphan medicinal product (Cholic Acid FGK) with cholic acid as the active ingredient. Although Cholic Acid FGK was authorised for three other therapeutic indications than those for which Orphacol was authorised, the Summary of Product Characteristics and the Assessment Report for Cholic Acid FGK, which according to the applicant form an integral part of the contested decision, contained extensive references to the efficacy as well as references to the safety of Cholic Acid FGK in the therapeutic indications for which Orphacol was authorised.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 141/2000, as the Commission has, by granting a marketing authorisation for Cholic Acid FGK on the terms set out in the Summary of Product Characteristics and the Assessment Report, circumvented the applicant’s market exclusivity, since the terms upon which the marketing authorisation for Cholic Acid FGK was granted imply, in substance, that Cholic Acid FGK is also authorised for the two therapeutic indications for which Orphacol is authorised.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1).


title: Case C-491/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), by order of that court dated 6 December 2001, in the case of The Queen on the application of 1) British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd, 2) Imperial Tobacco Ltd against Secretary of State for Health

text:
C 56/6                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         2.3.2002
The Commission claims that the Court should:                              1.    Is Directive 2001/37/EC (1) invalid, in whole or in part,
                                                                                by reason of:
1.    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                    a.      the inadequacy of Articles 95 and/or 133 EC as a
      Council Directive 98/76/EC (1) of 1 October 1998                                  legal basis;
      amending Directive 96/26/EC (2) on admission to the
      occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger
      transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas,                    b.      the use of Articles 95 and 133 EC as a dual legal
      certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications                          basis;
      intended to facilitate for these operators the right to
      freedom of establishment in national and international                    c.      infringement of the principle of proportionality;
      transport operations the Kingdom of Sweden has failed
      to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
                                                                                d.      infringement of Article 295 EC, the fundamental
2.    order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs of the                               right to property and/or Article 20 of TRIPs;
      proceedings.
                                                                                e.      infringement of Article 253 EC and/or the duty to
                                                                                give reasons;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 f.      infringement of the principle of subsidiarity;
Under the binding provisions of Articles 10 and 249 EC                          g.      misuse of powers?
the Member States must take all appropriate measures to
implement directives in national law within the prescribed                2.    If it is valid, does Article 7 of Directive 2001/37/EC of the
period. The period prescribed in Article 2(1) of Directive                      Parliament and Council apply only to tobacco products
98/76/EC ended on 1 October 1999 without the Kingdom                            marketed within the European Community, or does it
of Sweden having adopted the necessary laws and other                           apply also to tobacco products packaged within the
provisions.                                                                     European Community for export to third countries?
(1) OJ L 277, 14.10.1998, p. 17.
(2) OJ L 124, 23.5.1996, p. 1.                                            (1) Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                              Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws,
                                                                              regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States
                                                                              concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco
                                                                              products — Commission statement (OJ L 194, 18/07/2001,
                                                                              p. 26).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
(Administrative Court), by order of that court dated
6 December 2001, in the case of The Queen on the
application of 1) British American Tobacco (Investments)
Ltd, 2) Imperial Tobacco Ltd against Secretary of State for
                                Health                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
                                                                          richt Stuttgart by order of that court of 4 December 2001
                                                                          in the case of Raffaele Oliveri against Land Baden-
                           (Case C-491/01)                                                             Württemberg
                            (2002/C 56/12)                                                           (Case C-493/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 56/13)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Adminis-
trative Court) dated 6 December 2001, which was received at               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the Court Registry on 19 December 2001, for a preliminary                 European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
ruling in the case of The Queen on the application of 1) British          Stuttgart (Stuttgart Administrative Court) of 4 December 2001,
American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd, 2) Imperial Tobacco                   received at the Court Registry on 19 December 2001, for a
Ltd against Secretary of State for Health, on the following               preliminary ruling in the case of Raffaele Oliveri against Land
questions:                                                                Baden-Württemberg on the following questions:


title: Case F-49/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2011 — De Nicola v European Investment Bank (Staff case — Staff of the European Investment Bank — Sickness insurance — Refusal to reimburse medical expenses — Request for independent doctor to be designated — Reasonable period of time)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/40

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2011 — De Nicola v European Investment Bank
   (Case F-49/10) (1)

   (Staff case - Staff of the European Investment Bank - Sickness insurance - Refusal to reimburse medical expenses - Request for independent doctor to be designated - Reasonable period of time)
   2011/C 232/69
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by L. Isola, avocat)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by T. Gilliams and F. Martin, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the defendant’s decision not to reimburse sessions of laser therapy.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 221 of 14.8.10, p. 61.


title: Case T-510/13: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Italy v Commission (Languages — Notice of open competition for the recruitment of translators — Choice of second language from three languages — Language of communication with the candidates to the competition — Regulation No 1 — Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations — Principle of non-discrimination — Proportionality)

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-510/13) (1)

   ((Languages - Notice of open competition for the recruitment of translators - Choice of second language from three languages - Language of communication with the candidates to the competition - Regulation No 1 - Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations - Principle of non-discrimination - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 059/15)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili and S. Fiorentino, avvocati dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, abogado del Estado)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and B. Beutler, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/260/13, EPSO/AD/261/13, EPSO/AD/262/13, EPSO/AD/263/13, EPSO/AD/264/13, EPSO/AD/265/13 and EPSO/AD/266/13 to draw up reserve lists for the recruitment of Danish-language translators, English-language translators, French-language translators, Italian-language translators, Maltese-language translators, Dutch-language translators and Slovenian-language translators (OJ 2013 C 199 A, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/260/13, EPSO/AD/261/13, EPSO/AD/262/13, EPSO/AD/263/13, EPSO/AD/264/13, EPSO/AD/265/13 and EPSO/AD/266/13 to draw up reserve lists for the recruitment of Danish-language translators, English-language translators, French-language translators, Italian-language translators, Maltese-language translators, Dutch-language translators and Slovenian-language translators;

               2)

               Orders the European Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Italian Republic;

               3)

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear their own costs relating to their interventions.

      (1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 September 2000 in Case C-322/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg): Bärbel Kachelmann v Bankhaus Hermann Lampe KG (Social policy — Male and female workers — Access to employment and working conditions — Equal treatment — Conditions governing dismissal)

text:
25.11.2000                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 335/11
1.    Declares that, by raising, on 1 July 1995 and 1 February                for the award of public works contracts (OJ, English Special
      1996, the tolls for the full itinerary on the Brenner motorway,         Edition 1971 (II), p. 682), as amended by Council Directive
      a transit route through Austria used predominantly by goods             89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989 (OJ 1989 L 210, p. 1), in
      vehicles of a maximum permissible gross laden weight of not             particular under Articles 12, 26 and 29 thereof, and under
      less than 12 tonnes registered in other Member States, but not          Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
      for partial itineraries on that motorway, the great majority of         coordination of procedures for the award of public works
      the users of which are vehicles of a maximum permissible gross          contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54), in particular under Articles
      laden weight of not less than 12 tonnes used for the same type          8, 11, 22 and 30 thereof — the Court, composed of:
      of transport and registered in Austria, and, second, by not             G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
      applying the abovementioned tolls only in order to cover the            D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen (Presidents of
      costs linked with the construction, operation and development           Chambers), J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and
      of the Brenner motorway, the Republic of Austria has failed to          V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
      fulfil its obligations under, respectively, Article 7(b) and Article    D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
      7(h) of Council Directive 93/89/EEC on the application by               trar, has given a judgment on 26 September 2000, in which it:
      Member States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage
      of goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain           1.    Declares that, in the course of the various procedures for the
      infrastructures;                                                              award of public works contracts for the construction and
                                                                                maintenance of school buildings conducted by the Nord-Pas-
2.    Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                              de-Calais Région and the Département du Nord over a period
                                                                                of three years, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                                          amendment, Article 49 EC) as well as under Articles 12(5),
                                                                                26 and 29(2) of Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July
                                                                                1971 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award
                                                                                of public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive
                                                                                89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989, and under Articles 8(3),
                                                                                11(5), 22(2) and 30(2) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of
                                                                                14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for
                                                                                the award of public works contracts;
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      2.    Dismisses the application as to the remainder;
                          of 26 September 2000                                3.    Orders the French Republic and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities to bear their own costs.
in Case C-225/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                        ties v French Republic (1)                            (1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Public
works contracts — Directives 71/305/EEC, as amended by
Directive 89/440/EEC, and 93/37/EEC — Construction and
maintenance of school buildings by the Nord-Pas-de-Calais                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
               Région and the Département du Nord)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                             (2000/C 335/20)
                                                                                of 26 September 2000
                       (Language of the case: French)                         in Case C-322/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg): Bärbel Kachelmann v
                                                                                Bankhaus Hermann Lampe KG (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                              (Social policy — Male and female workers — Access to
                      in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              employment and working conditions — Equal treatment —
                                                                                Conditions governing dismissal)
In Case C-225/98: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-                                                 (2000/C 335/21)
Bellanger and A. Viéville-Bréville) application for a declaration
that, in the course of the various procedures for the award of
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
public works contracts for the construction and maintenance
of school buildings conducted by the Nord-Pas-de-Calais
Région and the Département du Nord over a period of three                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
years, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations                                  in the European Court Reports)
under Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 49 EC) as well as under Council Directive 71/305/EEC                  In Case C-322/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
of 26 July 1971 concerning the coordination of procedures                     the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Audiencia Provincial
 ---pagebreak--- C 335/12                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        25.11.2000
de Palma de Mallorca, Spain, for a preliminary ruling in                     23 March 1994 materially amending for the second time
the proceedings pending before that court between Bärbel                     Directive 83/189/EEC (OJ 1994 L 100, p. 30) — the Court,
Kachelmann and Bankhaus Hermann Lampe KG — on the                            composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, L. Sevón and
interpretation of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC               R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn,
of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of                 C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, H. Ragnemalm,
equal treatment for men and women as regards access to                       M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
employment, vocational training and promotion, and working                   General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 September 2000, in
composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,                        which it has ruled:
L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and
M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,                A national court is required, in civil proceedings between individuals
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                    concerning contractual rights and obligations, to refuse to apply a
26 September 2000, on which it ruled:                                        national technical regulation which was adopted during a period of
                                                                             postponement of adoption prescribed in Article 9 of Council
Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of                    Directive 83/189/EEC laying down a procedure for the provision of
9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal              information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as
treatment for men and women as regards access to employment,                 amended by Directive 94/10/EC of the European Parliament and
vocational training and promotion, and working conditions must be            the Council of 23 March 1994 materially amending for the second
interpreted as not precluding an interpretation of a national rule,          time Directive 83/189.
such as that contained in Article 1(3) of the Kündigungsschutzgesetz
in the version in force until 30 September 1996, which proceeds on
the general basis that part-time workers are not to be compared with         (1) OJ C 33 of 6.2.1999.
full-time workers when an employer has to proceed to selection on the
basis of social criteria when abolishing a part-time job on economic
grounds.
(1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 26 September 2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      in Case C-478/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                        of 26 September 2000
                                                                             (Loans issued abroad — Prohibition of acquisition by Belgian
                                                                                residents)
in Case C-443/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Pretore di Milano (Italy)): Unilever Italia SpA v Central
                              Food SpA (1)                                                             (2000/C 335/23)
(Technical standards and regulations — Obligations of
notification and postponement of adoption — Applicability                                        (Language of the case: French)
                          in civil proceedings)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                            (2000/C 335/22)
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)                        In Case C-478/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: H. Michard and B. Mongin v Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                             (Agent: A. Snoecx, assisted by B. van de Walle de Ghelcke) —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       application for a declaration that, by prohibiting the acquisition
                     in the European Court Reports)                          by persons resident in Belgium of securities of a loan issued
                                                                             abroad, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
In Case C-443/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                obligations under Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretore di Milano                56 EC) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
(Magistrate, Milan) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings              President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón
pending before that court between Unilever Italia SpA and                    and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn
Central Food SpA — on the interpretation of Council Directive                (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,
83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for                      P. Jann, and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
the provision of information in the field of technical standards             General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
and regulations (OJ 1983 L 109, p. 8), as amended by Directive               the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 September 2000, in
94/10/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of                       which it:


title: Case C-446/99: Action brought on 23 November 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
C 47/16               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        19.2.2000
The appellant claims that the Court should:                             the European Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli,
                                                                        of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
1. Set aside the contested judgment;                                    in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
2. Annul the contested hardship decision of the Commission
    of 24 October 1997;
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
3. Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        — Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                             and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Council Directive 96/34/EC (1) of 3 June 1996 on the
                                                                             framework agreement on parental leave, the Italian Repub-
The appeal is directed against the judgment of 28 September                  lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
1999 by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the
application for annulment of the decision refusing an appli-            — Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
cation for additional ripening licences as a transitional measure
to compensate for a situation of hardship not its own fault
                                                                        Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
under Article 30 of the organisation of the market in bananas
(Council Regulation No 404/93 (1)). Breach of Community law
is complained of, namely:                                               By virtue of Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty),
                                                                        under which a directive is binding on the Member State to
— Article 30 of Regulation No 404/93: The Court of First                which it is addressed as regards the result to be achieved,
    Instance fails to recognise that the case of hardship as            Member States are required to observe time-limits for the
    found by the Court of Justice in Case C-68/95 T. Port is            transposition of directives. The prescribed period expired on
    only one of the cases to which Article 30 is applicable, and        3 June 1998 and the Italian Republic has not yet adopted the
    that the conditions laid down by the Court of Justice for           provisions needed to comply with the directive to which the
    the Commission to be obliged to compensate a case of                Commission refers in its application.
    hardship do not automatically apply. In the present
    case the transitional difficulties did not arise from the
                                                                        (1) OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4.
    applicant’s conduct, but were structural difficulties which
    had arisen for new undertakings such as the applicant
    and had been made worse by the introduction of the
    organisation of the market in bananas. The structural
    disadvantage of the applicant as a new undertaking in the
    former GDR — as that of all other new undertakings —
    consisted in the fact that in 1989 and 1990, the years
    which Regulation No 404/93 determined as the reference              Action brought on 23 November 1999 by the Com-
    period for 1993 and 1994, it had not been able to carry             mission of the European Communities against the Repub-
    out any relevant transactions for reference purposes;                                            lic of Austria
— the principle of equal treatment: For new undertakings in                                        (Case C-446/99)
    the territory of the former GDR — as the only group in
    the Community — the aforesaid reference years were                                              (2000/C 47/25)
    necessarily simply immaterial. The principle of equal
    treatment required the Community institutions to take
                                                                        An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
    account of this exceptional situation, since different situ-
                                                                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    ations were otherwise treated in the same way.
                                                                        23 November 1999 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, a
(1) OJ L 47 of 25.2.1993, p. 1.                                         member of the Legal Service of the European Commission,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                        Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
                                                                        European Commission, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg,
                                                                        Luxembourg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 23 November 1999 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Italian                 1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and communicate to
                             Republic                                        the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                             provisions necessary to ensure compliance with
                        (Case C-445/99)                                      Article 9(2), (4) and (6) of Directive 97/13/EC (1) of the
                                                                             European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997
                         (2000/C 47/24)                                      on a common framework for general authorisations and
                                                                             individual licences in the field of telecommunications
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                services, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
Court of Justice on 23 November 1999 by the Commission of                    obligations under that Directive;
 ---pagebreak--- 19.2.2000               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 47/17
2. Order the Republic of Austria to bear the costs of the              Crehan (by original action) and Bernard Crehan against 1)
     action.                                                           Courage Ltd, 2) Inntrepreneur Estates (CPC) plc, 3) Courage
                                                                       Group Ltd (by counterclaim), on the following questions:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        1. Is Article 81EC (ex Article 85) to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                           that a party to a prohibited tied house agreement may rely
All the Member States are under a duty to transpose the                    upon that article to seek relief from the courts from the
Directive into mandatory national provisions in due time. The              other contracting party?
period provided for in Article 25 of the Directive expired on
31 December 1997, without Austria having                               2. If the answer to Question 1 is yes is the party claiming
                                                                           relief entitled to recover damages alleged to arise as a result
— restricted the time-limit for the granting of individual                 of his adherence to the clause in the agreement which is
     licences where there are special circumstances to a                   prohibited under Article 81?
     maximum of four months;
                                                                       3. Should a rule of national law which provides that Courts
— transposed into national law the maximum time-limit of                   should not allow a person to plead and/or rely upon his
     two months for decisions in the event of withdrawal,                  own illegal actions as a necessary step to recovery of
     amendment or temporary suspension pursuant to                         damages be allowed as consistent with Community law?
     Article 9(4) of the Directive;
                                                                       4. If the answer to Question 3 is that in some circumstances
— laid down an appropriate procedure for appealing pursuant                such a rule may be inconsistent with Community law
     to Article 9(4) and (6): the Constitutional Court has                 what circumstances should the national court take into
     established the failure to transpose (2) and is now rou-              consideration?
     tinely (3) refusing to deal with complaints addressed to it
     against decisions of the Telecom Control Commission,
     referring to the existence of a right to appeal to the
     Administrative Court, which, in its view, stems directly
     from Community law. However, there has not thus far
     been any Declaration from the Administrative Court
     confirming that it has jurisdiction. Nor can, in the Com-
     mission’s view, the right of appeal to the Administrative
     Court be regarded, contra legem, purely on the basis of the       Appeal brought on 30 November 1999 by J against the
     case-law of the Constitutional Court as sufficient for            judgment delivered on 28 September 1999 by the Third
     reasons of legal certainty.                                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities in Case T-28/98 between J and the Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
(1) OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15.
(2) In Declaration B 1625/98 of 24.2.1999 relating to a similar
    provision in a directive.                                                                   (Case C-456/99 P)
(3) Decisions of 11.3.1999 in complaint proceedings B 1637/98, B
    2175/98, B. B 1768/98 and B 1884/98.
                                                                                (2000/C 47/27)
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 September
                                                                       1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                       the European Communities in Case T-28/98 between J and the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal              30 November 1999 by J, represented by Georges Vandersan-
(England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that                 den and Laure Lévi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
court of 4 August 1999, in the case of Courage Ltd against             service in Luxembourg at the office of Société de Gestion
Bernard Crehan (by original action) and Bernard Crehan                 Fiduciaire, 24 Rue Beck.
against 1) Courage Ltd, 2) Inntrepreneur Estates (CPC)
         plc, 3) Courage Group Ltd (by counterclaim)
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
                           (Case C-453/99)                             — Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                           28 September 1999 in Case T-28/98;
                            (2000/C 47/26)
                                                                       — Consequently, grant the form of order sought by the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     appellant at first instance, and therefore annul the Com-
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal                    mission’s decision of 6 January 1997 fixing the appellant’s
(England and Wales) (Civil Division) of 4 August 1999, which               place of recruitment as Brussels;
was received at the Court Registry on 30 November 1999, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Courage Ltd against Bernard        — Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 1996 in Case C-278/93: (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Bremen): Edith Freers and Hannelore Speckmann v. Deutsche Bundespost (Indirect discrimination against women workers - Compensation for attendance at training courses providing members of staff committees with the knowledge necessary for performing their functions)

text:
No C 133/ 10           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4 . 5 . 96
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( Fifth Chamber )                                                     ( Sixth Chamber)
                      of 29 February 1996                                                     of 7 March 1996
      in Case C-307/94: Commission of the European                     in Case C-278/93 : (reference for a preliminary ruling from
              Communities v. Italian Republic (')                      the Arbeitsgericht Bremen ): Edith Freers and Hannelore
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                            Speckmann v. Deutsche Bundespost ( 1 )
                     Directive 85/432/EEC)                             (Indirect discrimination against women workers —
                           ( 96/C 133/ 19 )                            Compensation for attendance at training courses providing
                                                                       members ofstaffcommittees with the knowledge necessary
                                                                                for performing their functions)
                 (Language of tbe case: Italian)                                                  96/C 133/20 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                              published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-278/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
In Case C-307/94 : Commission of the European                          of the EC Treaty by the Arbeitsgericht Bremen ( Germany )
Communities ( Agents : Enrico Traversa and Enrico Vesco )              for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
v. Italian Republic ( Agents : Professor Umberto Leanza,               that court between Edith Freers, Hannelore Speckmann and
assisted by Pier Giorgio Ferri ) — application for a                   Deutsche Bundespost, Article 119 of the EEC Treaty and of
declaration that, by postponing from 1 October 1987 to                 Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
1 November 1990 the time-limit laid down in Article 5 of               approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
Council Directive 85/432/EEC of 16 September 1985                      the application of the principle of equal pay for men and
concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law,            women ( OJ No L 45 , 1975 , p . 19 ) — the Court ( Sixth
regulation or administrative action in respect of certain              Chamber ) composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of the
activities in the field of pharmacy ( OJ No L 253 , 1985 ,             Chamber, G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G.
p . 34 ) and by retaining until the latter date curricula for          Kapteyn, and J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur), Judges;
training in pharmacy which are incompatible with that                  Advocate-General : M. Darmon, Registrar : H. von Holstein,
Directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its .             Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 March 1996,
obligations under Directive 85/432 and particularly under              the operative part of which is as follows :
Articles 1 , 2 and 5 thereof — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),
composed of D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber,                 1 . The compensation paid to a male or female worker for
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , C. Gulmann, L. Sevôn                           taking part in statutorily established staffrepresentation
( Rapporteur ) and M. Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo                     constitutes pay within the meaning of Article 119 of the
Colomer, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                            EC Treaty and of Council Directive 75/117/EEC of
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment                1 0 February 1 975 on thze approximation of the laws of
on 29 February 1996 , in which it:                                         the Member States relating to the application of the
                                                                           principle of equal pay for men and women.
1 , declares that, by postponing from 1 October 1987 to                2 . Where the category of part-time workers includes a
     1 November 1 990 the time-limit laid down in Article 5                much higher number of women than men, the
     of Council Directive 85/432/EEC of 16 September 1985                  prohibition of indirect discrimination in the matter of
     concerning the coordination ofprovisions laid down by                 pay, as set out in Article 119 of the Treaty and in
     law, regulation or administrative action in respect of                Directive 75/117/EEC, precludes national legislation
     certain activities in the field of pharmacy, and by                   which, not being suitable and necessary for achieving a
     retaining until the latter date . curricula for training in           legitimate social policy aim, has the effect of limiting to
     pharmacy which are incompatible with that Directive,                  their individual working hours the compensation which
     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations             staff committee members employed on a part-time basis
     under Directive 85/432 and particularly under                         are to receive from their employer for attending training
     Articles 1 , 2 and 5 thereof;                                         courses which impart the knowledge necessary for
                                                                           serving on staff committees and are held during the
                                                                           full-time working hours applicable in the undertaking
                                                                           but which exceed their individual part-time working
2 , orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                          hours, when staff committee members employed on a
                                                                           full-time basis receive compensation for attendance at
                                                                           the same courses on the basis of their full-time working
(') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                         hours .
                                                                       C ) OJ No C 178 , 30 . 6 . 1993 .
 ---documentbreak--- 4 . 5 . 96             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 133/ 11
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
                        ( Sixth Chamber )                             Tributaria di Primo Grado di Reggio Emilia by order of that
                                                                      court of 15 June 1995 in the case of Max Mara Fashion
                        of 7 March 1996                               Group SRL against Ufficio del Registro di Reggio Emilia
in Case C-360/93 : European Parliament v. Council of the                                        Case C-307/95 )
                       European Union (')                                                        ( 96/C 133/22 )
(Common commercial policy — Services — Government
                           procurement)                               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                           ( 96/C 133/21 )                            European Communities by order of the Commissione
                                                                      Tributaria di Primo Grado (Tax Court of First Instance ),
                                                                      Reggio Emilia of 15 June 1995 , which was received at the
                  (Language of the case: French)                      Court Registry on 27 September 1995 , for a preliminary
                                                                      ruling in the case of Max Mara Fashion Group SRL against
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          Ufficio del Registro di Reggio Emilia . The Commissione
           published in the European Court Reports)                   Tributaria made a reference for a preliminary ruling under
                                                                      Article 177 of the EC Treaty on the interpretation of
                                                                      Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
In Case C-360/93 : European Parliament ( Agents : Johann              indirect taxes on the raising of capital ( OJ, English Special
Schoo and José Luis Rufas Quintana ) v . Council of the               Edition 1969 ( II ), p . 412 ), as amended by Council Directive
European Union ( Agents : Ramon Torrent and Amadeu                    85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 ( OJ No L 156 , 1985 , p . 23 ).
Lopes Sabino ), supported by Commission of the European               The Court made an order on 21 December 1995 , the
Communities ( Agents : Jorn Sack and Patrick Hetsch ) and by          operative part of which is as follows :
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
( Agent: John E. Collins ) — Application for the annulment of         The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by
Council Decision 93/323/EEC of 10 May 1993 concerning                 Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado , Reggio Emilia, by
the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of a                       an order of 15 June 1995 is inadmissible.
Memorandum of Understanding between the European
Economic Community and the United States of America on
government procurement ( OJ No L 125 , 1993 , p . 1 ) and
Council Decision 93/324/EEC of 10 May 1993 concerning
the extension of the benefit of the provisions of                     Action brought on 24 January 1996 by the Commission of
Directive 90/53 1 /EEC in respect of the United States of             the European Communities against the Kingdom of
America ( OJ No L 125 , 1993 , p . 54 ), — the Court ( Sixth                                           Spain
 Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of the                                        ( Case C-21 /96 )
 Chamber, G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G.                                            ( 96/C 133/23 )
Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and J. L. Murray, Judges;
Advocate-General : G. Tesauro, Registrar: R. Grass, has               An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
given a judgment on 7 March 1996 , in which the operative             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
 part is as follows :                                                 24 January 1996 by the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, represented by Thomas F. Cusack, Legal
 1 , annuls Council Decision 93/323/EEC of 10 May 1993                Adviser, and Isabel Martinez del Peral, of its Legal Service,
      concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the form           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
      of a Memorandum of Understanding between the                    Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
      European Economic Community and the United States
                                                                      The Commission claims that the Court should :
       of America on government procurement and Council
      Decision 93/324/EEC of 10 May 1993 concerning the                1 , declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
       extension of the benefit of the provisions of                       administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       Directive 90/531 /EEC in respect of the United States of            Articles 3 , 4 and 5 of Council Directive 84/446/Euratom
      America ;
                                                                           of 3 September 1 984 laying down basic measures for the
                                                                           radiation protection of persons undergoing medical
 2 , maintains in force the effects of the annulled                        examination or treatment (') or by failing to inform the
       decisions;                                                          Commission of the measures it has adopted for the
                                                                           transposition of the Directive, the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                           has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty
 3 , orders the Council to pay the costs;                                  establishing the European Atomic Energy Community;
                                                                           and
 4 , orders the Commission and the United Kingdom to bear              2 , order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .
       their own costs.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
 (') OJ No C 232 , 28 . 8 . 1993 .
                                                                       Under the third paragraph of Article 161 of the Euratom
                                                                       Treaty, the Directive is binding, as to the result to be
                                                                       achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed,


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2004 in Case C- 330/01 P: Hortiplant SAT v Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture — EAGGF — Cancellation and request for repayment of financial assistance — Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Article 24(1) and (2) — Obligation on the Commission to request the Member State concerned to submit observations before cancelling financial assistance)

text:
3.4.2004                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 85/5
1.    For three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the packaging                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of goods which are packaged in trade for reasons linked to the
      very nature of the goods, the packaging thereof must be
      assimilated to the shape of the goods, so that that packaging
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
      may constitute the shape of the goods within the meaning of
      Article 3(1)(e) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of
      21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member
      States relating to trade marks and may, where appropriate,                                     of 12 February 2004
      serve to designate characteristics of the packaged goods,
      including their quality, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(c) of
      that directive.
                                                                              in Case C- 330/01 P: Hortiplant SAT v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
2.    For three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the packaging
      of goods which are packaged in trade for reasons linked to the          (Agriculture — EAGGF — Cancellation and request for
      very nature of the product, their distinctive character within the      repayment of financial assistance — Regulation (EEC)
      meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 89/104 must be                  No 4253/88 — Article 24(1) and (2) — Obligation on the
      assessed by reference to the perception of the average consumer         Commission to request the Member State concerned to
      of such goods, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably            submit observations before cancelling financial assistance)
      observant and circumspect. Such a trade mark must enable such
      a consumer to distinguish the product concerned from those
      of other undertakings without conducting an analytical or                                         (2004/C 85/06)
      comparative examination and without paying particular atten-
      tion.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
3.    The distinctive character of a trade mark within the meaning of
      Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 89/104 may be assessed solely on           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      the basis of national trade usage, without any need for other                              in the European Court Reports)
      administrative investigations to be undertaken in order to
      determine whether and to what extent identical trade marks
      have been registered or have been refused registration in other
      Member States of the European Union.
                                                                              In Case C-330/01 P, Hortiplant SAT established in Amposta
      The fact that an identical trade mark has been registered in one        (Spain), represented by C. Fernández Vicién and I. Moreno-
      Member State for identical goods or services may be taken into          Tapia Rivas: APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of
      consideration by the competent authority of another Member              First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber)
      State among all the circumstances which that authority must             of 14 June 2001 in Case T-143/99 Hortiplant v Commission
      take into account in assessing the distinctive character of a trade     [2001] ECR II-1665, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
      mark, but it is not decisive regarding the latter’s decision to         the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of
      grant or refuse registration of a trade mark.                           the European Communities (Agents: L. Visaggio, assisted by
                                                                              J. Guerra Fernández) with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                              bourg, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J. N. Cunha
      On the other hand, the fact that a trade mark has been                  Rodrigues, acting for the President of the Third Chamber, J.-
      registered in one Member State for certain goods or services can        P. Puissochet and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber,
      have no bearing on the examination by the competent trade               Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
      mark registration authority of another Member State of the              given a judgment on 12 February 2004, in which it:
      distinctive character of a similar trade mark for goods or services
      similar to those for which the first trade mark was registered.
                                                                              1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                              2.    Orders Hortiplant to pay the costs.
(1 ) OJ C 227, 11.8.2001.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.


title: Case T-446/15: Order of the General Court of 19 September 2016 — Indecopi v EUIPO — Synergy Group (PISCO)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/33

         Order of the General Court of 19 September 2016 — Indecopi v EUIPO — Synergy Group (PISCO)
   (Case T-446/15) (1)

   (2016/C 410/47)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Case T-119/04: Actionbrought on 25 March 2004 by Francisco Rossi Ferrerasagainst Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/88

         Action brought on 25 March 2004 by Francisco Rossi Ferreras against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-119/04)
   (2004/C 106/174)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 March 2004 by Francisco Rossi Ferreras, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Gilles Bounéou, and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the applicant's staff report for the period running from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 30 000 by way of non-material damage;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official working for the defendant, is challenging his report in respect of the period 2001 to 2002.
   He alleges infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principles of sound administration, non-discrimination and of the principle prohibiting arbitrary decisions as well as breach of the duty to provide reasons. He further alleges manifest error of assessment of the defendant's reporting officers and claims to have been the victim of harassment by his line manager.


title: Case C-232/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Aid granted to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark — Obligation of recovery — Non-execution owing to the application of a national procedure — National procedural autonomy — Limits — National procedure allowing immediate and effective execution for the purposes of Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — National procedure providing that actions brought against demands for payment issued by national authorities have suspensory effect)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/15

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-232/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid granted to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark - Obligation of recovery - Non-execution owing to the application of a national procedure - National procedural autonomy - Limits - ‘National procedure allowing immediate and effective execution’ for the purposes of Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - National procedure providing that actions brought against demands for payment issued by national authorities have suspensory effect)
   (2006/C 294/25)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito, Agent)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and S. Ramet, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to execute within the prescribed period Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark (OJ 2002 L 12, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiary the aid referred to in Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 2 and 3 of that decision;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 9.07.2005.


2.6.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 161/25
The applicant considered that the facts justified the bringing            After completion of tasks by a consultant, who determined,
of proceedings against ‘X’ before the Luxembourg court of                 inter alia, the broad outline for modernisation of the sector
competent jurisdiction.                                                   concerned, the applicant was instructed by the Commission,
                                                                          at an initial stage, to assist in drawing up the proposal for
                                                                          financing various elements of the ESSP Programme. The
The appointing authority rejected the applicant’s request that
                                                                          financing proposal was accepted and the applicant was
he be allowed to produce in the Luxembourg Criminal Court
                                                                          instructed, in the second stage, to draw up terms of reference
all the documents listed in an annex to that request, and any
                                                                          for the various elements of the ESSP Programme, and to assist
other relevant document which had not been disclosed to him.
                                                                          the Syrian beneficiaries in evaluating the pre-qualification
That is the decision at issue in these proceedings.
                                                                          tender files. The final responsibility for adoption of the terms
                                                                          of references, evaluation of the tenders and drafting of the
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:                          contracts attached to the Syrian authorities, under Commission
                                                                          supervision. Following the further preparation of the detailed
—     infringement of Articles 19 and 24 of the Staff Regu-               specifications for a system appropriate to Syrian conditions, a
      lations;                                                            call for tenders was issued by the Syrian authorities for the
                                                                          installation of an OPS (Operation Planning System). Two
—     infringement of Articles 6 and 13 of the European                   tenders were submitted in response to that call, one of which
      Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and                   considerably undercut the competing tender, being submitted
      Fundamental Freedoms.                                               by the applicant itself. The applicant was finally successful.
                                                                          The applicant adds, however, that, more than one month after
                                                                          signature of the contract, it was advised that the Commission
                                                                          was no longer able to approve the contract, but no reasons for
                                                                          this were given. Indeed, it did not become aware of the
                                                                          Commission’s alleged reasons until proceedings were brought
                                                                          before the Ombudsman.
Action brought on 29 March 2001 by Systems-Europe SA
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          In support of its claims, the applicant submits that the
                           (Case T-75/01)                                 Commission’s improper conduct in this case is apparent from
                                                                          various acts, courses of conduct and failure to act occurring
                                                                          throughout the procedure for award of the contract at issue,
                          (2001/C 161/49)                                 and subsequently after signature of that contract by the Syrian
                                                                          authorities.
                    (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
29 March 2001 by Systems-Europe SA, established in Brussels,
represented by Bernard Jamoulle, Frédéric Louis and Anne
Vallery, Lawyers.
                                                                                Removal from the Register of Case T-349/99 (1)
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
—     order the European Community, represented by the                                             (2001/C 161/50)
      Commission, to pay to Systems-Europe SA the sum of
      EUR 921 750 ;
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          By order of 6 March 2001, the President of the First Chamber
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
                                                                          has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-349/99,
                                                                          Miroslav Miskovic v Council of the European Union.
The applicant, which at the material time was a medium sized
independent engineering consultancy company incorporated
under Belgian law, specialising in particular in data processing
in the electricity sector, seeks compensation for the loss                (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
allegedly suffered by it as a result of the alleged misconduct of
the Commission in the context of a programme of financial
support for modernisation of the production and distribution
of electricity in Syria (ESSP Programme).