title: Case C-373/07 P: Appeal brought on 3 August 2007 by Mebrom NV against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2007 in Case T-216/05: Mebrom NV v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/17

         Appeal brought on 3 August 2007 by Mebrom NV against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2007 in Case T-216/05: Mebrom NV v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-373/07 P)
   (2007/C 247/21)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Mebrom NV (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, avocat, C. Mereu, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Set aside the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2007 in Case T-216/05;

               —

               Declare the Appellant's requests in Case T-216/05 admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Grant the application for annulment made in first instance or, in the alternative, refer the case to the Court of First Instance to rule on the merits; and

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to bear all costs and expenses of both proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance (hereafter ‘CFI’) did not ensure that the law is observed in the interpretation and application of Community law, as it is required to do under Art. 220 EC. The contested judgment dismissed the action for annulment on the basis of an incorrect interpretation and application of Arts. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation 2037/2000 (1). Moreover, the judgment lacked sufficient and consistent reasoning and it contained a series of errors of law and distortion of facts on record. The appellant maintains that the CFI erroneously held that the defendant was right to conclude that import quotas were no longer to be granted to importers but that it follows from Art. 7 of the regulation that, as of 2005, quotas were to be allocated to fumigators only (being users as opposed to importers). The CFI ruled that Art. 7 of regulation 2037/2000 left the defendant free to choose in this respect. Additionally, the appellant submits that the CFI failed to assess properly whether the defendant has made acceptable use of its alleged discretion in this regard. The CFI also failed to acknowledge that the defendant acted ultra vires and, furthermore, did not assess and address correctly whether the defendant infringed the legitimate expectations of the appellant. Finally, it is argued that the CFI also failed to adjudicate fully and properly the Applicant's arguments as submitted in the application.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (OJ L 244, p. 1).


title: Case C-208/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Landessozialgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 April 2007 — Petra von Chamier-Glisczinki v Deutsche Angestellten-Krankenkasse

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Landessozialgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 April 2007 — Petra von Chamier-Glisczinki v Deutsche Angestellten-Krankenkasse
   (Case C-208/07)
   (2007/C 155/20)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bayerisches Landessozialgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Petra von Chamier-Glisczinki

      Respondent: Deutsche Angestellten-Krankenkasse
   Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 19(1)(a) — in conjunction, as the case may be, with Article 19(2) — of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted in the light of Article 18 EC and Articles 39 EC and 49 EC, in conjunction with Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (2), as meaning that an employed or self-employed person, or a member of that person's family, may not receive any cash benefits or reimbursement provided on behalf of the competent institution by the institution of the place of residence, if there is provision under the law applicable to the institution of the place of residence for persons insured by that institution to receive only cash benefits, and not benefits in kind?

               2.

               If there is no such entitlement to benefits in kind, is there, in the light of Article 18 EC, or Articles 39 EC and 49 EC, any entitlement to payment — subject to prior approval — by the competent institution of the costs of in-patient care in a care home situated in another Member State, in the amount of the benefits payable in the competent Member State?

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416.

      (2)  OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475.


title: Case C-664/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Latvia)) — VAS ‘Ceļu satiksmes drošības direkcija’, Latvijas Republikas Satiksmes ministrija v Kaspars Nīmanis (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Driving licence — Renewal by the issuing Member State — Condition of residence in the territory of that Member State — Declaration of residence)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Latvia)) — VAS ‘Ceļu satiksmes drošības direkcija’, Latvijas Republikas Satiksmes ministrija v Kaspars Nīmanis
   (Case C-664/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Driving licence - Renewal by the issuing Member State - Condition of residence in the territory of that Member State - Declaration of residence))
   (2015/C 279/10)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: VAS ‘Ceļu satiksmes drošības direkcija’, Latvijas Republikas Satiksmes ministrija

      Defendant: Kaspars Nīmanis

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 12 of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which the only way in which a person who applies for the issue or renewal of a driving licence in that Member State can prove that he satisfies the condition of ‘normal residence’, within the meaning of that article, in the territory of that Member State, set out in Article 7(1)(e) and 7(3)(b) of that directive, is to establish that he has a declared place of residence in the territory of the Member State concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


title: Case T-9/08: Action brought on 7 January 2008 — Volkswagen v OHIM (CAR SILHOUETTE III)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/57

         Action brought on 7 January 2008 — Volkswagen v OHIM (CAR SILHOUETTE III)
   (Case T-9/08)
   (2008/C 64/92)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus, R. Jepsen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 November 2007, notified on 9 November 2007, in appeal case R 1306/2007-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The international figurative mark ‘CAR SILHOUETTE III’ for goods in Class 12 (international registration, designating the European Community, No W 878 349).

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of protection.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.
   Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) due to an incorrect examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion;

               —

               Infringement of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94, namely the right to a fair hearing;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 in finding the mark to be devoid of any distinctive character.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-250/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 93/38/EEC — Public contracts in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors — Award of a contract without a prior call for competition — Conditions — Communication of the reasons for the rejection of a tender — Time-limit)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-250/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 93/38/EEC - Public contracts in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors - Award of a contract without a prior call for competition - Conditions - Communication of the reasons for the rejection of a tender - Time-limit)
   2009/C 180/05
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Kukovec, agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: D. Tsagkaraki, agent, V. Christianos, dikigoros)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 4, 20(2) and 41(4) of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84) — Tender procedure for the study, supply, transport, installation and bringing into operation of two thermoelectric units for the thermoelectric station at Atherinolakkos, Crete

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by being unjustifiably late in replying to a tenderer’s request for information concerning the reasons for the rejection of its tender, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 41(4) of Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Commission Directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic and the Commission of the European Communities each to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.07.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 September 2001 in Case C-468/00: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 96/50/EC — Carriage of goods and passengers in the Community — Harmonisation of the conditions for obtaining national boatmasters' certificates for inland waterways — Non-implementation within the prescribed period)

text:
C 317/8                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            10.11.2001
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (First Chamber)                                                              (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 20 September 2001
                          of 4 October 2001
                                                                            in Case C-468/00: Commission of the European Communi-
in Case C-450/00: Commission of the European Communi-                                              ties v French Republic (1)
             ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Non-                 Directive 96/50/EC — Carriage of goods and passengers in
               incorporation of Directive 95/46/EC)                         the Community — Harmonisation of the conditions for
                                                                            obtaining national boatmasters’ certificates for inland water-
                                                                             ways — Non-implementation within the prescribed period)
                            (2001/C 317/13)
                                                                                (2001/C 317/14)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-450/00: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: X. Lewis) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:                       In Case C-468/00: Commission of the European Communities
N. Mackel) — application for declaration that, by failing to                (Agent: B. Mongin) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
bring into force, within the prescribed period, the laws,                   and S. Pailler) — application for a declaration that, by failing
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply               to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures
with Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of                   necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/50/EC of
the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of                         23 July 1996 on the harmonisation of the conditions for
individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and              obtaining national boatmasters’ certificates for the carriage of
on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31),                   goods and passengers by inland waterways in the Community
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its                      (OJ 1996 L 235, p. 31), or, in any event, by not notifying them
obligations under Article 32 of that Directive — the Court                  to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
(First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),                     obligations under that directive — the Court (Third Chamber),
President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;                    composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber,
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges;
judgment on 4 October 2001, in which it:                                    C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
                                                                            a judgment on 20 September 2001, in which it:
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
      all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary     1.     Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
      to comply with Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament                 the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to
      and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of                   comply with Council Directive 96/50/EC of 23 July 1996 on
      individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and               the harmonisation of the conditions for obtaining national
      on the free movement of such data, the Grand Duchy of                        boatmasters’ certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers
      Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 32             by inland waterways in the Community, the French Republic
      of that directive;                                                           has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                2.     Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                                   (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.


title: Case C-347/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands), lodged on 8 July 2010 — A. Salemink v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (UWV)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands), lodged on 8 July 2010 — A. Salemink v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (UWV)
   (Case C-347/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/53
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A. Salemink

      Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (UWV)

      Question referred

   Do the rules forming part of European Community law which are designed to bring about free movement for workers, in particular the rules set out in Titles I and II of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) as well as in Articles 39 and 299 of the EC Treaty (now respectively Articles 45 TFEU and 52 TEU, in conjunction with Article 355 TFEU) preclude an employee working outside Netherlands territory on a fixed installation on the Netherlands section of the continental shelf for an employer established in the Netherlands from being in a position in which he is not insured under national statutory employee insurance solely on the ground that he is not resident in the Netherlands but in another Member State (in this case, Spain), even if he has Netherlands nationality and can also avail of the option to take out voluntary insurance under essentially the same conditions as those which apply to compulsory insurance?

      (1)  Regulation of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2004 in Case C-28/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias): Epikouriko Kefalaio v Ipourgos Anaptixis (Insurance — Articles 15 and 16 of First Directive 73/239/EEC — Articles 17 and 18 of First Directive 79/267/EEC — Proceedings for the liquidation of an insurance undertaking following the withdrawal of authorisation — Respective priority of salary claims and insurance claims)

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 16 September 2004
   in Case C-28/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias): Epikouriko Kefalaio v Ipourgos Anaptixis (1)

   (Insurance - Articles 15 and 16 of First Directive 73/239/EEC - Articles 17 and 18 of First Directive 79/267/EEC - Proceedings for the liquidation of an insurance undertaking following the withdrawal of authorisation - Respective priority of salary claims and insurance claims)
   (2004/C 273/13)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-28/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece), made by order of 23 October 2002, received at the Court on 24 January 2003, in the proceedings between Epikouriko Kefalaio and Ipourgos Anaptixis, intervener: Omospondia Asfalistikon Sillogon Elladas — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Articles 15 and 16 of First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance, as amended by Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 73/239 and by Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239 and 88/357 (third non-life insurance Directive), and Articles 17 and 18 of First Council Directive 79/267/EEC of 5 March 1979 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct life assurance, as amended by Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267 and by Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267 and 90/619 (third life assurance Directive) do not preclude national legislation under which, if an insurance company is the subject of insolvency proceedings, is put into liquidation or is otherwise in a state of insolvency, the assets representing the technical provisions may be allocated to payment of salary claims before payment of insurance claims, where that legislation accords to insurance claims a priority whose scope encompasses in any event, in addition to the assets representing the technical provisions, other assets of the undertaking and may, by virtue of a ministerial decision, have been extended to all the available assets of the undertaking.

      (1)   OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 March 2000 in Case C-327/98: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 93/15/EEC)

text:
C 149/10                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            27.5.2000
2. The third and fourth paragraphs of Article 454(3) of Regulation          Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
     No 2454/93 must be interpreted as meaning that the compen-             judgment on 23 March 2000, in which it:
     sation mechanism established by that article also applies where
     the duties and other charges have been levied by the Member            1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed the
     State where the offence was discovered, even though it has been             laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to
     satisfactorily proved that the offence was actually committed in            comply with Articles 9 to 12 of Council Directive 93/15/EEC
     another Member State.                                                       of 5 April 1993 on the harmonisation of the provisions relating
                                                                                to the placing on the market and supervision of explosives for
3. The first paragraph of Article 454(3) and Article 455(1) of                   civil uses, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
     Regulation No 2454/93 must be interpreted as meaning that                   under that Directive;
     the customs authorities of the Member State where the offence or
     irregularity was discovered cannot impose on the holder of the         2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
     TIR carnet a time-limit of three months in which to provide
     satisfactory evidence as to where the offence or irregularity was      (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
     actually committed. The time-limit under the first paragraph of
     Article 454(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 for producing
     evidence as to where the offence or irregularity was committed is
     one year.
(1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998 and OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 28 March 2000
                                                                            in Case C-158/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen): proceedings for
                                                                            a review of legality on an application by Georg Badeck
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 and Others (1)
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                 (Equal treatment of men and women — Employment in the
                                                                              administration — Measures for the promotion of women)
                           of 23 March 2000
                                                                                (2000/C 149/17)
in Case C-327/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                       ties v French Republic (1)                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                         Directive 93/15/EEC)                                                    in the European Court Reports)
                            (2000/C 149/16)                                 In Case C-158/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Staatsgerichtshof
                                                                            des Landes Hessen, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the
                      (Language of the case: French)                        proceedings for a review of legality on an application by Georg
                                                                            Badeck and Others, interveners: Hessischer Ministerpräsident
                                                                            and Landesanwalt beim Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      on the interpretation of Article 2(1) and (4) of Council Directive
                     in the European Court Reports)                         76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of
                                                                            the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards
In Case C-327/98: Commission of the European Communities                    access to employment, vocational training and promotion,
(Agents: R. Wainwright and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French                     and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) — the Court,
Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and D. Wibaux) —                      composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho
application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within              de Almeida and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),
the period prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative              P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,
measures necessary to comply with Articles 9, 10, 11, 12 and                G. Hirsch, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate
14 of Council Directive 93/15/EEC of 5 April 1993 on the                    General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
harmonisation of the provisions relating to the placing on the              has given a judgment on 28 March 2000, in which it has ruled:
market and supervision of explosives for civil uses (OJ 1993
L 121, p. 20), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its                 Article 2(1) and (4) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,                       men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training
L. Sevón (Rapporteur), and C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and                and promotion, and working conditions does not preclude a national
P. Jann, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; D. Louterman-                 rule which


title: Case F-34/07: Action brought on 13 April 2007 — Skareby v Commission

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/27

         Action brought on 13 April 2007 — Skareby v Commission
   (Case F-34/07)
   (2007/C 129/46)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Carina Skareby (Bichkek, Kirghizistan) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the applicant's Career Development Report (CDR) for 2005;

               —

               Annul, in so far as necessary, the decision of the Appointing Authority (AIPN) rejecting the applicant's appeal;

               —

               Indicate to the AIPN the effects of annulment of the contested decisions and in particular the adoption of a new CDR for 2005, this time in compliance with the statutory rules;

               —

               Order the AIPN to pay to the applicant: i) a sum fixed ex aequo et bono at EUR 15 000 in respect of compensation for her non-material damage; ii) a sum fixed ex aequo et bono at EUR 15 000 in respect of compensation for the professional injury suffered by her; iii) a sum to be fixed in equity by the Tribunal in respect of her financial loss, late payment interest to run on each of those sums at the legal rate with effect from the date on which they become payable;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of her claim, the applicant first alleges failure to comply with the rules governing establishment of the CDR. The administration infringed the rules of procedure established by the general implementing provisions of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and committed manifest errors of assessment.
   The applicant then alleges infringement of the rights of the defence, the principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.
   Finally, she alleges that the administration misused its powers and misused the procedure.


title: Case T-306/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 –Spirlea v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Third indent of Article 4(2) — Requests for information addressed by the Commission to Germany in the context of an EU Pilot procedure — Refusal of access — Obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination — Overriding public interest — Partial access — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/38

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 –Spirlea v Commission
      (Case T-306/12) (1)

      ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Third indent of Article 4(2) - Requests for information addressed by the Commission to Germany in the context of an EU Pilot procedure - Refusal of access - Obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination - Overriding public interest - Partial access - Duty to state reasons))
      (2014/C 395/46)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicants: Darius Nicolai Spirlea and Mihaela Spirlea (Capezzano Pianore, Italy) (represented by: initially, V. Foerster and T. Pahl, and, subsequently, V. Foerster and E. George, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agent, assisted initially by A. Krämer and R. Van der Hout, and subsequently by R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

         Interveners in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: initially, V. Pasternak Jørgensen and C. Thorning, and, subsequently, C. Thorning and K. Jørgensen, acting as Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent); and Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: initially, C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Falk, C. Stege, S. Johannesson, U. Persson, K. Ahlstrand-Oxhamre and H. Karlsson, and, subsequently, C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Falk, U. Persson, L. Swedenborg, C. Hagerman and E. Karlsson, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents); and Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially, S. Centeno Huerta, and, subsequently, J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, abogados del Estado)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 21 June 2012 refusing to allow the applicants access to two requests for information addressed by the Commission to the Federal Republic of Germany, dated 10 May and 10 October 2011, in the context of EU Pilot procedure No 2070/11/SNCO.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders each party to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Case C-128/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium)) — Jacques Damseaux v État belge (Free movement of capital — Taxation of investment income — Double taxation convention — Obligation of the Member States under Article 293 EC)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/18

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium)) — Jacques Damseaux v État belge
   (Case C-128/08) (1)

   (Free movement of capital - Taxation of investment income - Double taxation convention - Obligation of the Member States under Article 293 EC)
   2009/C 267/30
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jacques Damseaux

      Defendant: État belge

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Interpretation of Articles 56, 58 and 293 EC — Heavier taxation of investment income from abroad than of investment income paid by a company established in the Member State of residence — Obstacle to free movement of capital — Scope of conventions preventing double taxation — Obligation of Member States under Article 293 EC

      Operative part of the judgment

   In so far as Community law, in its current state and in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not lay down any general criteria for the attribution of areas of competence between the Member States in relation to the elimination of double taxation within the European Community, Article 56 EC does not preclude a bilateral tax convention, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which dividends distributed by a company established in one Member State to a shareholder residing in another Member State are liable to be taxed in both Member States, and which does not provide that the Member State in which the shareholder resides is unconditionally obliged to prevent the resulting juridical double taxation.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.


title: Case T-369/12: Action brought on 20 August 2012 — American Express Marketing & Development v OHIM (EUROPE IP ZONE)

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/13

         Action brought on 20 August 2012 — American Express Marketing & Development v OHIM (EUROPE IP ZONE)
   (Case T-369/12)
   2012/C 319/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: American Express Marketing & Development Corp. (New York, United States) (represented by: V. Spitz, A. Gaul, T. Golda, and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 June 2012 in case R 1451/2011-2;

               —

               In the alternative, amend the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 June 2012 in case R 1451/2011-2, and rule that the appeal is justified; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘EUROPE IP ZONE’ for services in class 42 — Community trade mark application No 9488032

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Case C-391/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 14 July 2016 — M v Ministerstvo vnitra

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 14 July 2016 — M v Ministerstvo vnitra
   (Case C-391/16)
   (2016/C 350/20)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: M

      Defendant: Ministerstvo vnitra

      Question referred

   Is Article 14(4) and (6) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted invalid on the grounds that it infringes Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the general principles of EU law under Article 6(3) of the Treaty on European Union?

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9.


title: Case C-258/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Peter Sweetman and Others v An Bord Pleanála (Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Article 6 — Conservation of natural habitats — Special areas of conservation — Assessment of the implications for a protected site of a plan or project — Criteria to be applied when assessing the likelihood that such a plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned — Lough Corrib site — N6 Galway City Outer Bypass road scheme)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Peter Sweetman and Others v An Bord Pleanála
   (Case C-258/11) (1)

   (Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 6 - Conservation of natural habitats - Special areas of conservation - Assessment of the implications for a protected site of a plan or project - Criteria to be applied when assessing the likelihood that such a plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned - Lough Corrib site - N6 Galway City Outer Bypass road scheme)
   2013/C 156/06
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Peter Sweetman, Ireland, Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

      Respondent: An Bord Pleanála

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court, Ireland — Interpretation of Article 6(3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Assessment of the implications for a protected site of a plan or project — Criteria to be applied when assessing the likelihood that such a plan or such a project will adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned — Consequences of application of the precautionary principle — Construction of a road whose route crosses an area proposed as a special area of conservation

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site will adversely affect the integrity of that site if it is liable to prevent the lasting preservation of the constitutive characteristics of the site that are connected to the presence of a priority natural habitat whose conservation was the objective justifying the designation of the site in the list of sites of Community importance, in accordance with the directive. The precautionary principle should be applied for the purposes of that appraisal.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: Case C-461/14: Action brought on 7 October 2014  — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/16

         Action brought on 7 October 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-461/14)
   (2014/C 462/25)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms y D. Loma-Osorio Lerena, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under (i) Article 3 of Directive 85/337/EEC (1) amended by Directives 97/11/EC (2) and 2003/35 (3) on the assessment of the environmental impact of certain public and private projects, (ii) Article 4(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC (4) on the conservation of wild birds — until 29 July 2008, the date of designation of the location in question as a special protection area for birds (SPA) — and (iii) Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EC (5) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, from the date of that designation;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present case concerns the project for a new high-speed railway line between Seville and Almería, Sections ‘Marchena-Osuna I’, ‘Marchena-Osuna II’ and ‘Variante de Osuna’, and the possibility that the Spanish authorities have failed to apply correctly relevant provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, the Wild Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive. The Commission has reached that conclusion having particular regard to the potential effects of the works and the subsequent operation of Andalusia’s crossrail line where it passes through the ‘Campiñas de Sevilla’ special protection area for birds (SPA), taking the view that those effects have not been adequately addressed.

      (1)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).

      (2)  OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5.

      (3)  Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17).

      (4)  Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2009 L 20, p. 7).

      (5)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 6 November 1997 in Case C-261/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Venezia): Conserchimica Srl v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (Customs duty - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Limitation period)

text:
C 387/6                                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                         20 . 12 . 97
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      by the Commission of the European Communities,
                           ( First Chamber)                               represented by Helene Michard and Barry Doherty,
                                                                          members of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                        of 6 November 1997                                address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                          Gomez de la Cruz, also a member of its Legal Service,
in Case C-261/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                Centre Wagner.
the Corte d'Appello di Venezia): Conserchimica Srl v.
        Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (')
(Customs duty — Post-clearance recovery of import duties                  The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                        — Limitation period)
                             ( 97/C 387/ 10 )                             — declare that in not subjecting tolls for the use of
                                                                                existing toll-roads and toll-bridges in Ireland to value
                                                                                added tax contrary to the provisions of Articles 2,
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                                4 ( 1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 5 ) of the Sixth VAT Directive (') and by
                                                                                failing to make available to the Commission the
                                                                                amounts         of own      resources  and  interest   on    late
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                 payment as a consequence of this infringement Ireland
          published in the European Court Reports)                              has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty,
In the Case C-261 /96 : reference to the Court under                      — order Ireland to bear the costs of these proceedings .
Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Corte d'Appello di
Venezia ( Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
pending before that court between Conserchimica Sri and
Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato — on the
interpretation of Article 2 of Council Regulation ( EEC )                 Value Added Tax
No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance
recovery of import duties or export duties which have not
                                                                          Taxable transactions
been required of the person liable for payment on goods
entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation
to pay such duties ( OJ 1979 L 197, p. 1 ) — the Court                    The heart of the present case is whether certain
( First Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward                           transactions are subject to VAT. As a result, it is necessary
( Rapporteur) acting as President of Chamber, R Jann and                  to establish the exact scope of the tax . Article 2
L. Sevon, Judges, B. Elmer, Advocate General; R. Grass,                   paragraph 1 of the Sixth VAT Directive provides that
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 November 1997, in                    value added tax shall be levied on 'the supply of goods or
which it has ruled :
                                                                          services effected for consideration within the territory of
                                                                          the country by a taxable person acting as such'. Article 4
the second subparagraph of Article 2 (1 ) of Council                      of the same Directive provides some definitions :
Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the
post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties                 ' 1 . 'Taxable person' shall mean any person who
which have not been required of the person liable for                           independently carries out in any place any economic
payment on goods entered for a customs procedure                                activity specified in paragraph 2 whatever the purpose
involving the obligation to pay such duties does not apply                      or results of that activity.
 to duties not collected in respect of goods entered for a
 customs procedure where the obligation to pay those
duties was incurred on a date prior to the entry into force                 2 . The economic activities referred to in paragraph 1
 of that regulation.                                                            shall comprise all activities of producers, traders and
                                                                                persons supplying services (. . .). The exploitation of
 (') OJ C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .                                                  tangible or intangible property for the purpose of
                                                                                obtaining income therefrom on a continuing basis
                                                                                shall also be considered an economic activity '.
                                                                                (Emphasis added)
                                                                          The Commission submits that one example of 'the
                                                                          exploitation of tangible or intangible property for the
 Action brought on 21 October 1997 by the Commission                      purpose of obtaining income therefrom on a continuing
         of the European Communities against Ireland                       basis' is operating a road and charging a toll for its use .
                           ( Case C-358/97 )                              As a result, such operations are an economic activity and
                                                                           hence the person carrying them out is a taxable person for
                              ( 97/C 387/ 11 )
                                                                           the purposes of the Sixth VAT Directive.
 An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                The Commission submits that a transaction which falls
Justice of the European Communities on 21 October 1997                     under the scope of the Sixth VAT Directive is subject to


24.1.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 21/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  Removal from the register of Case C-135/02 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/54)
Various provisions adopted by several German Länder (con-
forming to the Federal Model Form of a Furnace Regulation of
24 February 1995) are, in the Commission’s view, incompat-                By order of 30 September 2003 the President of the Court of
ible with Directive 90/396/EEC on gas-fuelled appliances.                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Those provisions relate to:                                               from the register of Case C-135/02: Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
—      gas boilers with a thermal output of more than 50 kw,
       which may be installed only in separate rooms;
                                                                          (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
—      certain gas boilers which must be equipped with a
       safety device which prevents the concentration of carbon
       monoxide in the air from exceeding 30 ppm; and
—      gas boilers which must be equipped with a device which,
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-142/02 (1)
       in certain circumstances, closes off the gas supply.
                                                                                (2004/C 21/55)
This gives rise to an impediment to the placing on the
market in the Länder concerned of appliances satisfying the
requirements of the Directive because, in those Länder, matters           By order of 15 September 2003 the President of the Court of
already governed by the Directive, such as the installation of            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
appliances only in rooms which do not constitute living space,            from the register of Case C-142/02: Commission of the
protection from the release of unburned gas, risk of explosion,           European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
etc., are subject to additional regulation by national provisions.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
The Federal Republic of Germany takes the view that, having
regard to the public safety of persons and the protection of life
and health of persons against general risks posed by fuel-
burning installations, the Member States are competent to
increase as appropriate the safety levels of such fuel-burning                   Removal from the register of Case C-228/02 (1)
installations on the basis of national building regulations. The
Commission rejects that line of argument, pointing out that,                                      (2004/C 21/56)
in accordance with the ‘New Approach’ concept, the Directive
contains a comprehensive set of rules on the matters covered
by it so that the adoption of additional national provisions              By order of 17 September 2003 the President of the Second
governing that area no longer comes into question.                        Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case C-228/02:
(1) OJ 1990 L 196, p. 15.                                                 Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of
                                                                          Luxembourg.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-157/01 P
                        and C-169/01 P (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-229/02 (1)
                          (2004/C 21/53)                                                          (2004/C 21/57)
By order of 17 July 2003 the President of the Court of Justice            By order of 18 September 2003 the President of the Court of
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
register of Joined Cases C-157/01 P and C-169/01 P: Federal               from the register of Case C-229/02 (Reference for a preliminary
Republic of Germany v RAG Aktiengesellschaft and UK Coal                  ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt): Tenderer: debis/AC and
v Commission of the European Communities.                                 Others v Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversi-
                                                                          cherungsträger.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001, OJ C 168 of 30.6.2001.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.


title: Case T-486/07: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2011 — Ford Motor v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community trade mark CA — Earlier Community word and figurative marks KA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2011 — Ford Motor v OHIM
   (Case T-486/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark CA - Earlier Community word and figurative marks KA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 139/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ford Motor Company (Dearborn, Michigan, United States) (represented by: R. Ingerl, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alkar Automotive, SA (Derio, Spain) (represented by: S. Alsonso Maruri, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2007 (Case R 85/2006-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ford Motor Company and Alkar Automotive, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ford Motor Company to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Case T-274/09: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Deutsche Bahn v OHIM — DSB (IC4) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark IC4 — Earlier Community word mark ICE and earlier national figurative mark IC — Criteria for assessing likelihood of confusion — Relative grounds for refusal — Similarity of the services — Similarity of the signs — Distinctive character of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Deutsche Bahn v OHIM — DSB (IC4)
   (Case T-274/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark IC4 - Earlier Community word mark ICE and earlier national figurative mark IC - Criteria for assessing likelihood of confusion - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the services - Similarity of the signs - Distinctive character of the earlier mark - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 311/72
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Bahn AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: E. Haag, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: DSB (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: T. Swanstrøm, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2009 (Case R 1380/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Deutsche Bahn AG and DSB

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 April 2009 (Case R 1380/2007-1) and the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 26 July 2007;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Deutsche Bahn AG for the purposes of the present judicial proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

               3.

               Orders OHIM and DSB to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case C-550/03: Action brought on 23 December 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
6.3.2004                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 59/13
As a result of its failure to fulfil those obligations, Spain must               —     2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the
pay default interest, in accordance with Community rules on                            Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council
own resources. According to settled case-law, there is an                              Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the
indissoluble link between the obligation to establish the                              Community’s railways (1);
Community’ own resources, the obligation to credit them to
the Commission’s account within the prescribed time-limit                        —     2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the
and, finally, the obligation to pay default interest, which is                         Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council
owed for the whole period of delay and is payable regardless                           Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway
of the reason for the delay in making the entry in the                                 undertakings (2);
Commission’s account. Consequently, the reference made by
the Spanish authorities to their internal procedures, has no
influence as regards its obligation to pay default interest. In                  —     2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the
order to enable the Commission to calculate the default                                Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of
interest, Spain must communicate to it all the information                             railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of
necessary on the periods which elapsed between the entry in                            charges for the use of railway infrastructure and
the accounts, as the relevant time for the establishment of own                        safety certification (3);
resources, according to the provisions of Community law on
the collection of those resources, and the practice followed by                  and in any event by failing to notify the provisions in
the Spanish authorities. The Kingdom of Spain has failed to                      question to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has
fulfil that obligation.                                                          failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives.
                                                                           —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913 of 12 October 1992 estab-
    lishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1854/89 of 14 June 1989 on the
    entry in the accounts and terms of payment of the amounts of
    import duties or export duties resulting from a customs debt (OJ       Pleas in law and main arguments
    1989 L 186, p. 1).
(3) Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989
    implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of
    the Communities own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1).                   The period prescribed for transposing the directives into
(4) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May                national law expired on 15 March 2003.
    2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system
    of the Communities own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1).
                                                                           (1) OJ L 75 of 15.03.2001, p. 1.
                                                                           (2) OJ L 75 of 15.03.2001, p. 26.
                                                                           (3) OJ L 75 of 15.03.2001, p. 29.
Action brought on 23 December 2003 by the Commission
     of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                             Republic
                                                                           Appeal brought on 29 December 2003 by Unilever
                         (Case C-550/03)                                   Bestfoods (Ireland) Ltd, formerly HB Ice Cream Ltd,
                                                                           against the judgment delivered on 23 October 2003 by
                                                                           the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                          (2004/C 59/22)
                                                                           European Communities in case T-65/98 between Van den
                                                                           Bergh Foods Ltd, formerly HB Ice Cream Ltd, and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 December                                          (Case C-552/03 P)
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Georgios Zavvos and Wouter Wils, of its Legal
Service.                                                                                (2004/C 59/23)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 October 2003
—      declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations             by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
       and administrative provisions necessary to comply with              European Communities in case T-65/98 (1) between Van den
       Directives:                                                         Bergh Foods Ltd, formerly HB Ice Cream Ltd, and the


title: Case T-297/07: Action brought on 1 August 2007 — TridonicAtco v OHIM (Intelligent Voltage Guard)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/21

         Action brought on 1 August 2007 — TridonicAtco v OHIM (Intelligent Voltage Guard)
   (Case T-297/07)
   (2007/C 235/38)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: TridonicAtco GmbH & Co KG (Dornbirn, Austria) (represented by L. Wiltschek, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Amend the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 May 2007 (Case R 108/2007-2) to the effect that the international word and figurative mark No 874 778 ‘Intelligent Voltage Guard’ is registered for protection in the European Community;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the case back to OHIM;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Intelligent Voltage Guard’ for goods in Classes 9 and 11 (international registration No W 874 778)

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), on the basis that the trade mark ‘Intelligent Voltage Guard’ has a distinctive character.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1).


title: Case C-253/10: Action brought on 19 May 2010 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/14

         Action brought on 19 May 2010 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
   (Case C-253/10)
   2010/C 195/21
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Tokár and A. Marghelis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Slovak Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt a national strategy for the implementation of the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfills in accordance with Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive;

               —

               order Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   According to Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC, ‘Member States shall set up a national strategy for the implementation of the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfills, not later than two years after the date laid down in Article 18(1) and notify the Commission of this strategy’, Article 18(1) providing that ‘Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive not later than two years after its entry into force’. Pursuant to Article 19, the directive entered into force 16 July 1999. That directive thus had to be complied with by 16 July 2001 and the obligation to set up a national strategy, as laid down in Article 5(1), had to be fulfilled by 16 July 2003.
   Since for new Member States no different time-limit was laid down in Article 54 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession, the Slovak Republic was to set up a national strategy for the implementation of the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfills pursuant to Article 5(1) by the date of accession, that is, by 1 May 2004.
   The European Commission thus claims that the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste.


               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/1

         (2007/C 69/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 56, 10.3.2007

   Past publications

      OJ C 42, 24.2.2007

      OJ C 20, 27.1.2007

      OJ C 331, 30.12.2006

      OJ C 326, 30.12.2006

      OJ C 310, 16.12.2006

      OJ C 294, 2.12.2006

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case T-483/14: Action brought on 26 June 2014  — Banco de Albacete v Commission

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/52

         Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Banco de Albacete v Commission
   (Case T-483/14)
   2014/C 261/81
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Banco de Albacete, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and A. Biondi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.


title: Case T-421/17: Action brought on 6 July 2017 — Leino-Sandberg v Parliament

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/38

         Action brought on 6 July 2017 — Leino-Sandberg v Parliament
   (Case T-421/17)
   (2017/C 293/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Päivi Leino-Sandberg (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: O. Brouwer and S. Schubert, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Parliament’s decision of 3 April 2017 refusing the applicant access to its decision of 8 July 2015 adopted in response to a confirmatory application made by a third party under Regulation 1049/2001;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging error of law, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of the exception relating to the protection of court proceedings, contained in Article 4(2), second indent, of the Transparency Regulation.

                           —

                           It is argued that the requested document is a final administrative document, not protected by confidentiality or any other non-disclosure exception. Furthermore, even if such an exception were to apply in the present case, it is argued that the defendant has manifestly misinterpreted or misapplied it by failing to show how the disclosure of the requested document would undermine the protection of court proceedings.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging error of law, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of the overriding public interest test as required by Article 4(2), second indent, of the Transparency Regulation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, as a subsidiary ground, error of law, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of Article 4(6) of the Transparency Regulation.


title: Case T-548/14: Action brought on 24 July 2014  — Spain v Commission

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/69

         Action brought on 24 July 2014 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-548/14)
   2014/C 315/114
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, Abogado del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in part the Decision of 15 May 2014 finding that the remission of import duties is justified for a certain amount and that the remission of import duties is not justified for another amount in a particular case (REM 03/2013), and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the fifth subparagraph of Article 220(2)(b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).

                           —

                           The applicant submits in that regard that the notice to importers published on 21 May 2010 refers exclusively to the imports of tuna preparations from Colombia and El Salvador, without referring to Ecuador, and includes merely a general reference to the effect that irregularities in respect of cumulation of origin cannot be ruled out in other countries. The notice published meets the requirements of any notice in respect of Colombia and El Salvador, but cannot be extended arbitrarily to other countries solely because it includes a general reference to the mere possibility of irregularities.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 239 of the Community Customs Code.

                           —

                           The applicant submits in that regard that in the present case the process for obtaining certificates of origin is carried out in accordance with the rules laid down to that effect by the competent authorities, which apply the legislation incorrectly and fail to fulfil their obligations with regard to issuing certificates and monitoring the orderly functioning of the arrangements. It is also continuing conduct which helps to create legitimate expectations on the part of operators. The requirements are therefore satisfied in order to acknowledge that there is a special situation within the framework of the preferential arrangements.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the fifth subparagraph of Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code in relation to the rule on regional cumulation in the implementing regulation.

                           —

                           The applicant states in that regard that since belonging to the same regional group is directly connected with the rule on regional cumulation and the notice includes the cumulation in its general reference to the possibility of irregularities, the right to rely on good faith cannot be affected as regards operations in which the rule on cumulation has not been applied to the countries referred to in the notice. In that case, the limitation cannot be applied to those imports which do not use products originating in Colombia and El Salvador.


title: Case T-273/11: Action brought on 30 May 2011 — Régie Networks and NRJ Global v Commission

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/27

         Action brought on 30 May 2011 — Régie Networks and NRJ Global v Commission
   (Case T-273/11)
   2011/C 226/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Régie Networks (Lyons, France) and NRJ Global (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Geneste and C. Vannini, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2010) 6483 Final of 29 September 2010 concerning the aid scheme C 4/09 (ex N 679/97) implemented by France to promote radio broadcasting (OJ 2011 L 61, p. 22);

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of res judicata by the Court of Justice in its judgment in Case C-333/07 Régie Networks [2008] ECR I-10807, in so far as the Commission did not comply with the relevant grounds and the operative part of judgment, by disregarding, in re-examining the compatibility of the aid scheme at issue, the method by which that aid scheme was financed and which the Court had mentioned to it.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of law relating to the grounds of the contested decision in so far as the Commission artificially disassociated the unlawful method of financing from the aid scheme concerned, although it had declared in its decision to initiate the inter partes procedure of 16 September 2009 that the unlawful nature of the charge has the consequence that that aid scheme in its entirety is essentially and directly unlawful.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules of the Treaty relating to the freedom to provide services in so far as the unlawful nature of the charge financing that aid scheme is established by reason of the fact that the detailed rules for the territorial assessment are contrary to the principle of freedom to provide services. The applicants submit that the partial reimbursement, ordered by the contested decision, cannot in any event alter the nature of the aid scheme in question and retroactively make it consistent with the Treaty.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision did not provide an adequate statement of reasons in so far as the Commission did not explain in detail how the conditions set out in the decision were capable of rendering the scheme compatible despite the finding that the method of financing was incompatible.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in so far as the applicants submit that by choosing to declare the aid scheme compatible by imposing retroactive conditions rather than purely and simply finding it incompatible, while exempting the French Republic from recovering the aid from the beneficiaries, the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law alleging abuse of process and infringement of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 in so far as the Commission, at the end of the formal investigation procedure, adopted a conditional decision, even though not only had its doubts as regards the compatibility of the aid scheme not been removed but it was also satisfied that the scheme was incompatible. It infringed the provisions of Regulation No 659/1999 and therefore committed an abuse of process.


title: Case T-96/05: Action brought on 16 February 2005 by Monte di Massima s.a.s. di Pruneddu Leonardo & C. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/26

         Action brought on 16 February 2005 by Monte di Massima s.a.s. di Pruneddu Leonardo & C. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-96/05)
   (2005/C 115/49)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 16 February 2005 by Monte di Massima s.a.s. di Pruneddu Leonardo & C., represented by Ennio Masu and Paola Alessandra E. Pittalis, lawyers.
   The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was J. M. Höffele Internationale Handelsgesellschaft.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that the decision of 24 November 2004 of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) misapplies Article 15(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark;

               2.

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for registration of the Community trade mark:

               Monte di Massima s.a.s.

               Community trade mark applied for:

               Figurative mark VALLE DELLA LUNA — Application for registration No 2 029 726 for goods in Class 32 (water, syrups, beers and non-alcoholic drinks)

               Owner of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               J. M. Höffele Internationale Handelsgesellschaft

               Mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               German word mark VALLE DE LA LUNA for goods in Class 33 (wines)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition refused

               Decision of the Board of Appeal

               Appeal allowed

               Pleas in law:

               Misapplication of Article 15(2)(a) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark


title: Case C-77/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 September 2013 — Council of the European Union v European Parliament (Action for annulment — Definitive adoption of the European Union’s general budget for the financial year 2011 — Act of the President of the Parliament declaring that the budget has been definitively adopted — Article 314(9) TFEU — Establishment by the Parliament and the Council of the European Union’s annual budget — Article 314, introductory paragraph, TFEU — Principle of institutional balance — Principle that the institutions must act within the limits of their powers — Duty to cooperate in good faith — Compliance with essential procedural requirements)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 September 2013 — Council of the European Union v European Parliament
   (Case C-77/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Definitive adoption of the European Union’s general budget for the financial year 2011 - Act of the President of the Parliament declaring that the budget has been definitively adopted - Article 314(9) TFEU - Establishment by the Parliament and the Council of the European Union’s annual budget - Article 314, introductory paragraph, TFEU - Principle of institutional balance - Principle that the institutions must act within the limits of their powers - Duty to cooperate in good faith - Compliance with essential procedural requirements)
   2013/C 325/02
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Maganza and M. Vitsentzatos, Agents)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Pennera, R. Passos, D. Gauci and R. Crowe, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

      Re:

   Action for annulment — Act of the President of the European Parliament of 14 December 2010 establishing the annual budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011 — Choice of legal basis — Failure of that non-typical and non-legislative act to comply with the new budget procedure introduced by the TFEU — Failure to respect the institutional balance — Breach of the principle of the conferment of powers and the duty of sincere cooperation — Breach of essential procedural requirements — Temporary maintenance of the effects of the budget

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.


title: Case C-465/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verfassungsgerichtshof, Vienna, by order of 12 December 2000 in the case of the Rechnungshof against 1. Österreichischer Rundfunk, 2. Wirtschaftskammer Steiermark, 3. Marktgemeinde Kaltenleutgeben, 4. Land Niederösterrreich, 5. Oesterreichische Nationalbank, 6. Stadt Wiener Neustadt, 7. Austrian Airlines, Österreichische Luftverkehrs-AG

text:
C 79/12                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        10.3.2001
(b) If that question is answered in the negative: Does the first               (c)   a national central bank,
      half of the final sentence of Article 2(8) of Council
      Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the                          (d) a statutory body representing its members’ interests,
      coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions relating to the application of review pro-                    (e)   a partially State-controlled undertaking which is
      cedures to the award of public supply and public                               operated for profit?
      works contracts require an interpretation of the national
      legislation to the effect that the court (the independent          2.    If the answer to at least part of the above question is in
      body) clarifies of its own motion, without specific                      the affirmative:
      assertions (and certainly without relevant offers of evi-
      dence) made by one of the parties, whether the invitation                Are the provisions precluding the abovementioned
      to tender in question is not an individual project, but                  national rules directly applicable, in the sense that persons
      merely a part-project and — in the event that the latter is              obliged to disclose data may rely on them to prevent the
      the case — whether the overall project has an estimated                  application of conflicting national rules?
      contract value of more than EUR 5 million, or is such a
      view prohibited precisely because the onus of proof and
      obligation to produce evidence imposed on the party
      constitutes the essential difference between a procedure in
      which both sides are heard and inquisitorial proceedings?
                                                                         Appeal brought on 22 December 2000 by the European
(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
                                                                         Parliament against the judgment delivered on 26 October
                                                                         2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-83/99,
                                                                         T-84/99 and T-85/99 between Ripa di Meana and Others
                                                                                and the European Parliament
                                                                                (Case C-470/00 P)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verfassungsge-                                           (2001/C 79/23)
richtshof, Vienna, by order of 12 December 2000 in the
case of the Rechnungshof against 1. Österreichischer
Rundfunk, 2. Wirtschaftskammer Steiermark, 3. Marktge-                   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 October 2000
meinde Kaltenleutgeben, 4. Land Niederösterrreich,                       by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
5. Oesterreichische Nationalbank, 6. Stadt Wiener                        European Communities in Joined Cases T-83/99, T-84/99 and
Neustadt, 7. Austrian Airlines, Österreichische Luft-                   T-85/99 between Ripa di Meana and Others and the European
                           verkehrs-AG                                   Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities on 22 December 2000 by the Euro-
                                                                         pean Parliament, represented by A. Caiola and G. Ricci, acting
                         (Case C-465/00)                                 as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                          (2001/C 79/22)                                 The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         1.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         26 October 2000 in Cases T-83/99 and T-84/99 Carlo
European Communities by order of the Verfassungsgerichts-                      Ripa di Meana and Leoluca Orlando and the European
hof, Vienna, by order of 12 December 2000, received at the                     Parliament;
Court Registry on 28 December 2000 for a preliminary ruling
in the case of the Rechnungshof against 1. Österreichischer             2.    in consequence, declare the applications of the said
Rundfunk, 2. Wirtschaftskammer Steiermark, 3. Marktgemein-                     applicants at first instance inadmissible and unfounded,
de Kaltenleutgeben, 4. Land Niederösterrreich, 5. Oesterreichi-                and
sche Nationalbank, 6. Stadt Wiener Neustadt, 7. Austrian
Airlines, Österreichische Luftverkehrs-AG on the following              3.    order the applicants at first instance to pay the whole of
questions:                                                                     the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First
                                                                               Instance and the Court of Justice.
1.    Are the provisions of Community law, in particular those
      on data protection, to be interpreted as precluding
      national rules which require a State body to collect and           Pleas in law and main arguments
      pass on data on income for the purpose of publishing the
      names and income of employees of:                                  The European Parliament puts forward three pleas in law in
                                                                         support of its appeal, two of which relate to admissibility and
      (a)   a regional or local authority,                               the third to the substance, the last being subdivided into
                                                                         various parts and supported by a number of legal arguments.
      (b) a broadcasting organisation governed by public law,            Its grounds of appeal are as follows: