title: Case C-224/15 P: Appeal brought on 15 May 2015 by Rose Vision, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 March 2015 in Case T-45/13 Rose Vision and Seseña v Commission

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/8

         Appeal brought on 15 May 2015 by Rose Vision, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 March 2015 in Case T-45/13 Rose Vision and Seseña v Commission
   (Case C-224/15 P)
   (2015/C 228/10)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Rose Vision, S.L. (represented by: J.J. Marín López, abogado)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 March 2015 in Case T-45/13 Rose Vision and Seseña v Commission, EU:T:2015:138;

               —

               annul the decisions to suspend payments adopted by the Commission and by other European Union bodies (in particular, the Research Executive Agency) in the context of audits 11-INFS-025 and 11-BA119-016, with the consequences indicated in paragraph 51 of the appeal;

               —

               declare that the Commission breached the contractual terms of the FutureNEM project grant agreement relating to the confidentiality obligation, and must therefore compensate Rose Vision in the terms set out in paragraph 93 of the appeal;

               —

               declare that the Commission incurred tortious liability as regards Rose Vision by including it in alert level W2 of the Early Warning System (EWS) established by Decision 2008/969/EC (1), Euratom, on the Early Warning System for the use of authorising officers of the Commission and the executive agencies, and suspending the payments, and must therefore compensate it for the property or pecuniary damage and the non-pecuniary damage indicated in paragraph 122 of the appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Error of law consisting in finding that there was an extension of the time limit laid down in paragraph 5 of point II.22 of general conditions FP7 for the presentation of the final versions of audit reports 11-INFS-025 and 11-BA119-016 (paragraphs 93 and 95 of the judgment under appeal) and that the Commission did not breach the grant agreement (paragraph 97 of the judgment under appeal).

               2.

               Error of law consisting in the failure to state reasons for the assertion that the draft report of audit 11-INFS-025 ‘already showed the existence of certain ineligible personnel costs as well as the infringement of certain contractual provisions, which was confirmed in the final version of the audit report’ (paragraph 99 of the judgment under appeal).

               3.

               Error of law consisting in stating, as regard audit report 11-INFS-025, that Rose Vision ‘had not put forward any evidence capable of calling into question the findings in that audit report’ (paragraph 101 of the judgment under appeal) and that the Commission had not breached the grant agreement (paragraph 102 of the judgment under appeal).

               4.

               Error of law consisting in denying the existence of a breach of the contractual provisions of the FutureNEM project grant agreement relating to the confidentiality obligation (paragraph 104 of the judgment under appeal).

               5.

               Error of law consisting in rejecting the European Union’s liability for the damage arising from Rose Vision’s inclusion in alert level W2 of the Early Warning System (EWS) established by Decision 2008/969/EC, and the suspensions of payment to Rose Vision (paragraph 120 of the judgment under appeal).

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 344, p. 125.


title: Case T-775/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2016 — EK/servicegroup v EUIPO (FERLI) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark FERLI — Requirement of clarity — Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rights of the defence — Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2016 — EK/servicegroup v EUIPO (FERLI)
   (Case T-775/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark FERLI - Requirement of clarity - Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rights of the defence - Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 022/42)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: EK/servicegroup eG (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: T. Müller and T. A. Müller, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2015 (Case R 1233/2015-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign FERLI as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders EK/servicegroup eG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 28.2.2016.


title: Case C-229/00: Action brought on 8 June 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
C 247/16              EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       26.8.2000
represented by Carmel O’Reilly, of its Legal Service, and                  Action brought on 8 June 2000 by the Commission of the
Giacinto Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to the                   European Communities against the Republic of Finland
Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                           (Case C-229/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 247/20)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
—     Declare that, by maintaining in force legislation                    the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 June
      (Article 207 of the highway code) which provides for                 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      different and disproportionate treatment for offenders               represented by Ilkka Koskinen and Hans Støvlbæk, of its Legal
      according to the place of registration of their vehicles, the        Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations.               Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
                                                                           Centre, Kirchberg.
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                           1.    Declare that the Republic of Finland has not adopted the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary
                                                                                to comply with Council Directive 89/105/EEC of
                                                                                21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of
                                                                                measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for
Article 207 of the highway code provides that, where a                           human use and their inclusion in the scope of national
provision of the highway code is infringed while driving a                       health insurance systems(1), and has thus failed in
vehicle registered abroad, the offender must pay — directly to                   particular to comply with Article 6 of that directive by
the booking officer and without being able to appeal to the                      not applying the prescribed procedure to decisions on
Prefect of the area where the offence takes place — a fine equal                 the determination of individual reimbursement categori-
to the minimum fixed for the particular type of offence or pay                   es, and failed to comply with its obligations by not
a security or show a credit document to cover a sum equal to                     publishing in negative decisions a statement of reasons
one half of the maximum of the pecuniary penalty set for the                     based on objective and verifiable criteria sufficient for the
offence. The provision provides for confiscation of the driving                  applicant;
licence if the offender fails to pay the security or to show the
guarantee. Appeal to the Prefect is not expressly provided for.
                                                                           2.    Order Finland to pay the costs.
Article 202 of the Code, on the other hand, provides that, for
offences involving a vehicle registered in Italy, the offender is          Pleas in law and main arguments
allowed to pay, no later than 60 days after notification, an
amount equal to the minimum fine set for the offence. The
offender may pay the fine at the police station to which the               The Finnish authorities consider that Finland is entitled to differ
booking officer belongs or by way of bank transfer to a post               in its own national legislation from Community legislation in
office or bank account. Finally, he is entitled to appeal to the           so far as Community legislation requires transparency from
Prefect within 60 days of the notification in respect of the               the authorities of a Member State. The ground stated is that
offence.                                                                   the decisions of the Valtioneuvosto (Government) of 1964 in
                                                                           the Finnish health insurance system come under the principle
                                                                           of proportionality in accordance with the Maastricht Treaty.
                                                                           This claim has no basis. That was also stated in the Com-
The Commission takes the view that the abovementioned                      mission’s reasoned opinion.
legislation constitutes discrimination on grounds of the place
of registration of the vehicle and thus has an effect on the
outcome as a result of discrimination on grounds of national-
ity. The Italian Republic therefore has failed to fulfil its               Since Article 1 of Directive 89/105/EEC requires Member
                                                                           States to ensure that all national measures, whether laid down
obligations under Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 12 EC).                                                 by law, regulation or administrative action, to control the
                                                                           prices of medicinal products for human use or to restrict the
                                                                           range of medicinal products covered by their national health
                                                                           insurance systems comply with the requirements of that
                                                                           directive, that means that it is not permitted to adopt in
                                                                           national legislation measures which differ from the provisions
                                                                           of the directive. That concerns in particular the requirement of
 ---pagebreak--- 26.8.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 247/17
transparency. Finland’s view that a political decision of the           Action brought on 9 June 2000 by the Commission of the
Valtioneuvosto entitles it to disregard the transparency require-          European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
ment is contrary to the directive.
                                                                                (Case C-232/00)
(1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 8.
                                                                                (2000/C 247/22)
                                                                        An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 June
                                                                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Maria Patakia and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal
                                                                        Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                        of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
                                                                        Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by orders of
6 April, 17 and 26 May 2000 in the case of Cooperativa                  The Commission claims that the Court should:
LATTEPIU a.r.l. v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel
                   mercato agricolo A.I.M.A.
                                                                        1.    declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
                                                                              Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
                        (Case C-231/00)                                       regulations and administrative provisions necessary for it
                                                                              to comply fully with Commission Directive 97/38/EC (1)
                        (2000/C 247/21)                                       of 20 June 1997 amending Annex C to Council Directive
                                                                              92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system
                                                                              for the recognition of professional education and training
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        to supplement Council Directive 89/48/EEC, the Hellenic
European Communities by orders of 6 April, 17 and 26 May                      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
2000 by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale (Regional                      Treaty and that directive;
Administrative Court), Lazio v Azienda di Stato per gli
interventi nel mercato agricolo A.I.M.A. (State Agricultural            2.    order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Market Intervention Body (AIMA)) which was received at the
Court Registry on 9 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling on the
following questions:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
1.   May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation                 In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
     (EEC) No 536/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as              directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
     meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or         each Member State to which they are addressed.
     judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate
     from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of              Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
     quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?                to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
                                                                        to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
2.   If not, are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of        or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December                 Community.
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
     (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of
     Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not         It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
     provide that derogations may be made from the periods              measures to comply with the abovementioned directives.
     prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of
     individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies
     in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those          The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
     provisions?                                                        has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
                                                                        ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.
(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 57, 10.3.1993, p. 12.                                          (1) OJ L 184, 12.7.1997, p. 31.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Heilbronn by order of that court of 16 June 1997 in the case of Dansommer A/S, Denmark v. Andreas Götz (Case C-8/98)

text:
C 72/12              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                          7.3.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht           Must the answer to that question be different in the case
Heilbronn by order of that court of 16 June 1997 in the           of taking part in a competition to find the national
    case of Dansommer A/S, Denmark v. Andreas Götz                champion of the Member State concerned?
                        (Case C-8/98)
                         (98/C 72/21)                             Further, may the person in question claim the right to be
                                                                  treated in the same way as nationals of that State with
                                                                  respect to the teams selected by the national sports
                                                                  federation of the Member State concerned for
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                  participation in major international tournaments and
European Communities by an order of the Landgericht
                                                                  competitions such as the European or World
(Regional Court), Heilbronn, of 16 June 1997, which was
                                                                  Championships or the Olympic Games, or may the
received at the Court Registry on 14 January 1998, for a
                                                                  national federations reserve such selection for their
preliminary ruling in the case of Dansommer A/S,
                                                                  nationals exclusively?
Denmark v. Andreas Götz on the following question:
                                                                  (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October
Is Article 16(1)(a) of the Convention applicable to letting           1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
                                                                      Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968, p. 475).
agreements for holiday homes where the liability of the           (2) Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the
tour operator is limited to the letting of a holiday home             abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the
and travel costs insurance in the event of cancellation               Community for nationals of Member States with regard to
provided for by way of a form, but the owner and lessee               establishment and the provision of services (OJ L 172,
of the holiday home are not resident in the same                      28.6.1973, p. 14).
Contracting state?
                                                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Audiencia
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de           Provincial de Palma de Mallorca (Sección 3a) by order of
PremieÁre Instance de Namur by judgment of that court of          that court of 12 January 1998 in the case of M. Amengual
5 January 1998 in the case of Ermanno Agostini and                                      Far v. J. Amengual Far
Emanuele Agostini v. Ligue Francophone de Judo et
                                                                                (Case C-12/98)
Disciplines AssocieÂes ASBL and Ligue Belge de Judo ASBL
                        (Case C-9/98)                                                         (98/C 72/23)
                         (98/C 72/22)
                                                                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                  European Communities by order of the Audiencia
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the            Provincial de Palma de Mallorca (Sección 3a) (Provincial
European Communities by a judgment of the First Civil             Court, Mallorca, Third Chamber) of 12 January 1998,
Chamber of the Tribunal de PremieÁre Instance de Namur            which was received at the Court Registry on 20 January
(Court of First Instance, Namur) of 5 January 1998,               1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of M. Amengual
which was received at the Court Registry on 15 January            Far v. J. Amengual Far on the following questions:
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ermanno
Agostini and Emanuele Agostini v. Ligue Francophone de
Judo et Disciplines AssocieÂes ASBL and Ligue Belge de            1. Has the Spanish law on VAT, by making subject to
Judo ASBL on the following questions:                                  that tax any letting or lease of immovable property in
                                                                       which an economic activity is pursued, transposed
                                                                       correctly Article 13B of Directive 77/388/EEC? (1)
Is it consistent or not with the Treaty of Rome, in
particular Articles 6, 48 and 59 et seq. thereof, and with
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) and Council Directive             2. Should the Court rule that Article 13B of Directive
73/148/EEC (2) to prohibit a national of a Member State                77/388/EEC has not been correctly transposed, is that
of the European Union from taking part in a sporting                   Community provision, in so far as it lays down a
competition, whether as a professional, semi-professional              general exemption from VAT in respect of leases of
or amateur, on the ground that the person in question                  immovable property, directly applicable?
does not possess the nationality of the Member State on
whose territory the competition is organised, where it is
known that that person is the child of workers who are            (1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
established in that Member State and has himself acquired
the status of worker on the territory of that Member
State?


title: Case T-184/13: Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Skype/OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (SKYPE)

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/28

         Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Skype/OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (SKYPE)
   (Case T-184/13)
   2013/C 171/55
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Skype (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor, J. Schmitt, lawyer, and J. Mellor, QC)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) and Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2013 in Case R 121/2011-4;

               —

               Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SKYPE’ — Community trade mark application No 4 521 084 for products and services in classes 9, 38 and 42

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘SKY’ for goods and services in classes 9, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 3 203 411

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods and services

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Case C-534/10 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2012 — Brookfield New Zealand Ltd, Elaris SNC v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO), Schniga GmbH (Appeal — Community plant variety rights — Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Article 73(2) — Decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO refusing an application for a Community plant variety right — Discretion — Review by the General Court — Article 55(4) read in conjunction with Article 61(1)(b) — Right of the CPVO to make a new request for the submission of plant material)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2012 — Brookfield New Zealand Ltd, Elaris SNC v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO), Schniga GmbH
   (Case C-534/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community plant variety rights - Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Article 73(2) - Decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO refusing an application for a Community plant variety right - Discretion - Review by the General Court - Article 55(4) read in conjunction with Article 61(1)(b) - Right of the CPVO to make a new request for the submission of plant material)
   2013/C 46/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Brookfield New Zealand Ltd, Elaris SNC (represented by: M. Eller, avvocato)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad and M. Lightbourne, acting as Agents), Schniga GmbH, (represented by: G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwalt)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 in Case T-135/08 Schniga v CPVO — Elaris and Brookfield New Zealand, by which that Court annulled the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of 21 November 2007 annulling the decision granting Schniga GmbH a Community plant variety right for the ‘Gala Schnitzer’ apple variety and the decisions dismissing the objections lodged by SNC Elaris and by Brookfield New Zealand

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Brookfield New Zealand Ltd and Elaris SNC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 5.2.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 September 2001 in Case C-16/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal administratif de Lille): Cibo Participations SA v Directeur régional des impôts du Nord-Pas-de-Calais (Sixth VAT Directive — Economic activity — Involvement of a holding company in the management of its subsidiaries — Deduction of VAT charged on services purchased by a holding company in the context of the acquisition of a shareholding in a subsidiary — Receipt of dividends by a holding company)

text:
10.11.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 317/5
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            exclusively composed have become customary in the current
                                                                                language or in the bona fide and established practices of the
                                                                                trade to designate the goods or services in respect of which
                          of 4 October 2001                                        registration of that mark is sought. It is immaterial, when that
                                                                                provision is applied, whether the signs or indications in question
                                                                                describe the properties or characteristics of those goods or
in Case C-517/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                          services.
  the Bundespatentgericht): Merz & Krell GmbH & Co (1)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
(Trade marks — Approximation of laws — Article 3(1)(d)
of First Directive 89/104/EEC — Grounds for refusal or
invalidity — Trade marks which consist exclusively of signs
or indications which have become customary in the current
language or in the bona fide and established practices of the
trade — Need for signs or indications to have become
customary to designate the goods or services in respect of
which registration of the mark is sought — No need for the
signs or indications to be directly descriptive of the properties                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
or characteristics of the goods or services in respect of which
                registration of the mark is sought)
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                            (2001/C 317/08)                                                         of 27 September 2001
                     (Language of the case: German)                          in Case C-16/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the tribunal administratif de Lille): Cibo Participations SA
                                                                              v Directeur régional des impôts du Nord-Pas-de-Calais (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                          (Sixth VAT Directive — Economic activity — Involvement
                                                                             of a holding company in the management of its subsidiaries
                                                                             — Deduction of VAT charged on services purchased by a
In Case C-517/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                holding company in the context of the acquisition of a
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundespatentge-                  shareholding in a subsidiary — Receipt of dividends by a
richt (Federal Patents Court) (Germany) for a preliminary ruling                                       holding company)
in the proceedings pending before that court by Merz & Krell
GmbH & Co — on the interpretation of Article 3(1)(d) of First                                           (2001/C 317/09)
Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — the Court, composed of:                                              (Language of the case: French)
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet
and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), J.-.P. Puissochet,
P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen, F. Macken (Rapporteur),                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
N. Colneric and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; D. Ruı́z-Jarabo                                       in the European Court Reports)
Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 4 October 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             In Case C-16/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                             by the tribunal administratif de Lille (Administrative Court,
                                                                             Lille) (France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
1.    Article 3(1)(d) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of               pending before that court between Cibo Participations SA and
      21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member                 Directeur régional des impôts du Nord-Pas-de-Calais — on the
      States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as only             interpretation of Article 4(1) and (2), Article 13B(d) arid
      precluding registration of a trade mark where the signs or             Article 17(2)(a) and (5) of the Sixth Council Directive
      indications of which the mark is exclusively composed have             77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
      become customary in the current language or in the bona fide           laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
      and established practices of the trade to designate the goods or       Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
      services in respect of which registration of that mark is sought.      ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (First Chamber),
                                                                             composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann
                                                                             and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
2.    Article 3(1)(d) must also be interpreted as meaning that it            General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the
      subjects refusal to register a trade mark to the sole condition        Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 September 2001, in
      that the signs or indications of which the trade mark is               which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 317/6                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.11.2001
1.    The involvement of a holding company in the management of            court between Tele Danmark A/S and Handels- og Kontorfunk-
      companies in which it has acquired a shareholding constitutes        tionærernes Forbund i Danmark (HK) — on the interpretation
      an economic activity within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the       of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
      Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the             1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treat-
      harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to           ment for men and women as regards access to employment,
      turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform           vocational training and promotion, and working conditions
      basis of assessment, where it entails carrying out transactions      (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) and Article 10 of Council Directive
      which are subject to value added tax by virtue of Article 2 of       92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of
      that directive, such as the supply by a holding company to           measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health
      its subsidiaries of administrative, financial, commercial and        at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently
      technical services.                                                  given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive
                                                                           within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC)
2.    Expenditure incurred by a holding company in respect of the          (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
      various services which it purchases in connection with the           of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet
      acquisition of a shareholding in a subsidiary forms part of its      (Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevón and C.W.A. Timmermans,
      general costs and therefore has, in principle, a direct and          Judges; D. Ruı́z-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H. von
      immediate link with its business as a whole. Thus, if the holding    Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
      company carries out both transactions in respect of which value      judgment on 4 October 2001, in which it has ruled:
      added tax is deductible and transactions in respect of which it is
      not, it follows from the first subparagraph of Article 17(2) of
      the Sixth Directive 77/388 that it may deduct only that
      proportion of the value added tax which is attributable to the
                                                                           1.   Article 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
      former.
                                                                                1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment
                                                                                for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational
3.    The receipt of dividends does not fall within the scope of value          training and promotion, and working conditions and Article 10
      added tax.                                                                of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the
                                                                                introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                                safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who
                                                                                have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual
                                                                                Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive
                                                                                89/391/EEC) are to be interpreted as precluding a worker from
                                                                                being dismissed on the ground of pregnancy
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         —     where she was recruited for a fixed period,
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                —     she failed to inform the employer that she was pregnant
                                                                                even though she was aware of this when the contract of
                          of 4 October 2001                                           employment was concluded,
in Case C-109/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Højesteret): Tele Danmark A/S v Handels- og
    Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund i Danmark (HK) (1)                            —     and because of her pregnancy she was unable to work
                                                                                during a substantial part of the term of that contract.
(Equal treatment for men and women — Article 5(1) of
Directive 76/207/EEC — Article 10 of Directive 92/85/EEC
— Dismissal of a pregnant worker — Fixed-term employ-                      2.   The fact that the worker has been recruited by a very large
                             ment contract)                                     undertaking which employs temporary workers frequently is of
                                                                                no relevance to the interpretation of Article 5(1) of Directive
                                                                                76/207 and Article 10 of Directive 92/85.
                           (2001/C 317/10)
                    (Language of the case: Danish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-109/00: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Højesteret (Supreme Court, Denmark) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that


title: Case F-102/14: Action brought on 6 October 2014  — ZZ v OHIM

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/51

         Action brought on 6 October 2014 — ZZ v OHIM
   (Case F-102/14)
   (2015/C 007/61)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: Heinrich Tettenborn)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of OHIM to apply the clause contained in the applicant’s contract of employment — which provides for a termination of the applicant’s contract of employment in the event that the applicant is not placed on the reserve list of the next general selection procedure organised by EPSO for its functional group and specialising in industrial property — to selection procedures OHIM/AD/01/13 and OHIM/AST/02/13, and a claim for damages for the non-material damage arising from that decision

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of OHIM, which was communicated to the applicant by letter from OHIM dated 28 November 2003, to apply the clause contained in Article 5 of the applicant’s contract of employment — which provides for a termination of the applicant’s contract of employment in the event that the applicant is not placed on the reserve list of the next general selection procedure organised by EPSO for its functional group and specialising in industrial property — to selection procedures OHIM/AD/01/13 and OHIM/AST/02/13, which were published on 31 October 2013;

               —

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

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.


title: Case T-248/06: Action brought on 11 September 2006 — Professional Golfers' Association v OHIM — Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA)

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/27

         Action brought on 11 September 2006 — Professional Golfers' Association v OHIM — Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA)
   (Case T-248/06)
   (2006/C 261/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: The Professional Golfers' Association Limited (Sutton Coldfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ladies Professional Golf Association (Corporation) (Daytona Beach, USA)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 July 2006 in Case number R1087/2005-2 in its entirety on the grounds that Articles 73 and 74 of Council Regulation No 40/94 were breached; and

               —

               order the case to be referred back to the Board of Appeal and be reheard by a different panel of judges from those who deliberated in the decision issued on 11 July 2006;

         or, in the alternative, if the Court finds that Articles 73 and 74 of Council Regulation 40/94 were not breached:

               —

               overturn the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 July 2006 in Case number R1087/2005-2 and find in favour of The Professional Golfers' Association Limited;
               and

               —

               order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Ladies Professional Golf Association Corp.

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘LPGA’ for goods and services in classes 25, 28 and 41 — application No 2 354 173

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: The Community word mark ‘PGA’ for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 37, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 73 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as neither of the parties has the opportunity to comment on the results of the Internet research carried out by the Board of Appeal.
   Violation of Article 74 of the regulation as the Board of Appeal took into account facts that had not been introduced or substantiated by the parties and did not take into account facts, evidence and arguments, which had been duly introduced by the applicant.


title: Case T-476/11 P: Appeal brought on 8 September 2011 by European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2011 in Case F-55/10, AS v Commission

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/24

         Appeal brought on 8 September 2011 by European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2011 in Case F-55/10, AS v Commission
   (Case T-476/11 P)
   2011/C 319/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: AS (Brussels, Belgium)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2011 in Case F-55/10 AS v Commission;

               —

               Order for costs in accordance with the law.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four plea(s) in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error of law in that the applicant was held to have an interest in the annulment of the decision rejecting her candidature. The Commission submits:

                           —

                           First branch: breach of Union law by failure to have regard to the judgment of 9 December 2010 in Case T-526/08 P Commission v Strack in so far as the CST acknowledged the right of the person concerned to seek the annulment of the decision rejecting her application for the post at issue despite the fact that she did not ask for annulment of the appointment decision, whereas those two decisions are inseparable;

                           —

                           Second branch: error in the legal characterisation of the facts in so far as an interest in bringing proceedings was acknowledged in the abstract, without all the evidence having been specifically examined;

                           —

                           Third branch: wrongful refusal to take account of certain information taken from the medical file which demonstrates that the applicant had no interest in bringing proceedings in this case.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging, first, breach of Union law when interpreting and applying the rule of correspondence between the complaint and the action in referring to the judgment of the CST of 1 July 2010 in Case F-45/07 Mandt v Parliament and in taking the view that the new plea alleging breach of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union was admissible despite the fact that it was not raised in the complaint and that it was ‘substantively’ different from the single plea alleging breach of the notice of vacancy put forward in the complaint and, second, breach of Article 91(2) of those Regulations in taking the view that the ‘cause of action’ is correctly defined as ‘challenge by the applicant to the substantive legality of the contested measure or, in the alternative, to its formal legality’, which would strip the pre-litigation procedure of all meaning and would no longer serve the purpose of that procedure which is to facilitate an amicable settlement between the person concerned and the appointing authority.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials and an error in the statement of reasons in so far as the CST interpreted Article 7(1) of those Regulations as granting an absolute right to every official to have access to all posts in his grade. The CST thereby misconstrued the scope of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations and of Article 10 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and the explanations given by the Commission regarding the interest of the service.

               4.

               Fourth plea alleging breach of Union law in that the sum of EUR 3 000 was granted by way of compensation for non-material damage whereas the plea alleging breach of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations was not only inadmissible but also unfounded.


title: Case T-1/2000: Action brought on 5 January 2000 by Gustav Hölzl, Günter Wiegert, Molkerei Wagenfeld Karl Niemann GmbH & Co. KG, Josef Brüninghoff and Ludger Nienhaus against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.3.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 63/31
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — Declare Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2799/1999 of
The applicants have already made two applications to the                     17 December 1999 laying down details of rules for
Commission for review of its refusal to grant access to certain              applying Regulation (EEC) No 1255/1999 as regards the
minutes of the Advisory Committee on VAT established by                      grant of aid for skimmed milk and skimmed-milk powder
Article 29 of the Sixth VAT Directive (1). In the course of the              intended for animal feed and the sale of such skimmed-milk
administrative proceedings the applicants lodged another                     powder to be null and void;
application for review with the Secretary General of the
Commission.                                                              — Order the defendant to reimburse the applicant’s costs.
In the present case they now submit that, by failing to give a           Pleas in law and main argument
substantive reply within one month to that application, the
Commission was deemed to have refused the application by                 The implementing regulation of the Commission under chal-
virtue of Article 2(4) of Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC/E-              lenge cancelled grants for skimmed milk for use as liquid
C/Euratom (Access decision). That refusal was unlawful per se            feedingstuff. The plaintiffs have calf rearing concerns, which
because it infringed Article 2(2) of the Access Decision and, in         have hitherto been using liquid feedingstuff, and dairies have
addition, Article 253 EC because, although a decision, it wholly         been were delivering milk to those concerns. The plaintiffs
fails to give reasons.                                                   consider themselves to be actually and individually concerned
                                                                         by the Regulation.
(1) Case T-78/99 Elder & Elder v Kommission, OJ C 174 of                 The plaintiffs essentially advance the following arguments:
    19.6.1999, p. 11, and Case T-178/99 Elder & Elder v Kommission,
    OJ C 281 of 1.10.1999, p. 28.                                        — Lack of jurisdiction on the part of the
                                                                             Commission
                                                                             In cancelling the grants, the Commission acted ultra vires
                                                                             its jurisdiction to issue implementing measures.
                                                                         — Infringement of an essential procedural
                                                                             requirement
Action brought on 5 January 2000 by Gustav Hölzl,                            The legal measure under challenge does not contain an
Günter Wiegert, Molkerei Wagenfeld Karl Niemann                              adequate statement of reasons.
GmbH & Co. KG, Josef Brüninghoff and Ludger Nienhaus
                                                                         — Infringement of the Treaty and general
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             principles of law
                         (Case T-1/2000)                                     There is no objective justification for drawing a distinction
                                                                             between skimmed milk and skimmed-milk powder, in
                                                                             respect of which grants may still be made, and the
                          (2000/C 63/62)                                     distinction therefore infringes general principles of law.
                                                                             The regulation under challenge jeopardises the existence
                                                                             of the plaintiffs’ concerns since they are not in a position
                   (Language of the case: German)                            to change to skimmed-milk powder for animal feed. It
                                                                             therefore affects their rights in immoveable property.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    Placing a disproportionate amount of the burden on one
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   particular group of economic operators constitutes an
European Communities on 5 January 2000 by Gustav Hölzl                       infringement of the principles of proportionality and
of Damme, Germany, and four others, represented by Ulrich                    the protection of legitimate expectations and of the
Schrömbges and Lothar Harings, Sozietät Graf von Westphalen                  Commission’s duty of care. Finally, the implementing
Fritze und Modest, Hamburg, Germany, with an address for                     regulation infringes basic Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999,
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and                          since the Commission did not have power to issue the
Madernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, L-2010 Luxembourg.                        implementing provisions in question.


title: Case T-337/10: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2014  — Seatech International and Others v Council and Commission

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/72

         Order of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Seatech International and Others v Council and Commission
   (Case T-337/10) (1)

   2014/C 315/117
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case T-188/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 October 2006 — Freixenet v OHIM (Shape of a frosted matt black bottle) (Community trade mark — Shape of a frosted matt black bottle — Absolute ground of refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Lack of distinctive character — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 October 2006 — Freixenet v OHIM (Shape of a frosted matt black bottle)
   (Case T-188/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Shape of a frosted matt black bottle - Absolute ground of refusal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Lack of distinctive character - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94)
   (2006/C 281/53)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Freixenet, SA (Sant Sadurní d'Anoia, Spain) (represented by: F. de Visscher, E. Cornu, É. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. de Medrano Caballero, Agent)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2004 (Case R 97/2001-4) concerning registration of a mark in the form of a frosted matt black bottle as a Community trade mark
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 February 2004 (Case R 104/2001-4);

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 201, 7.8.2004.


title: Case T-491/08 P: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2010 — Bui Van v Commission (Appeal — Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade — Withdrawal of an administrative measure — Protection of legitimate expectations — Reasonable time — Right to be heard)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2010 — Bui Van v Commission
   (Case T-491/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Classification in grade - Withdrawal of an administrative measure - Protection of legitimate expectations - Reasonable time - Right to be heard)
   2010/C 179/63
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Philippe Bui Van (Hettange-Grande, France) (represented by: P. Nelissen Grade, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2008 in Case F-51/07 Bui Van v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, for annulment of that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2008 in Case F-51/07 Bui Van v Commission inasmuch as it awards Philippe Bui Van damages of EUR 1 500;

               2.

               Dismisses the appeal and the remainder of the claims in the cross-appeal;

               3.

               Remits the case to the Civil Service Tribunal for it to give judgment on the action for damages;

               4.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Case C-569/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Special Commissioners, London (United Kingdom) made on 24 December 2007 — HSBC Holdings plc, Vidacos Nominees Ltd v The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Special Commissioners, London (United Kingdom) made on 24 December 2007 — HSBC Holdings plc, Vidacos Nominees Ltd v The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-569/07)
   (2008/C 64/38)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Special Commissioners, London
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: HSBC Holdings plc, Vidacos Nominees Ltd

      Defendant: The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   Questions referred
   Does Article 10 or Article 11 of Council Directive 69/335 (1), as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (2), or Article 43, Article 49 or Article 56 of the EC Treaty or any other provision of European Community law prohibit the levying by one Member State (‘the first Member State’) of a duty on the transfer or issue of shares into a clearance service of 1,5 % when:

               i.

               a company (‘Company A’) established in the first Member State offers to acquire the listed and traded shares in a company (‘Company B’) established in another Member State (‘the second Member State’) in return for shares in Company A, to be issued on the stock exchange in the second Member State;

               ii.

               shareholders in Company B have the option to receive the new shares in Company A either:

                           a.

                           in certificated form; or

                           b.

                           in un-certificated form through a settlement system in the first Member State; or

                           c.

                           in un-certificated form through a clearance service in the second Member State;

               iii.

               the law of the first Member State provides, in summary, that:

                           a.

                           in the event of the issue of shares in certificated form (or in un-certificated form in the settlement system for dematerialised shares of the first Member State), duty shall not be charged on the issue of the shares but on each subsequent sale of the shares, which duty is charged at the rate of 0,5 % of the consideration for the transfer; but

                           b.

                           on the transfer or issue of un-certificated shares to the operator of a clearance service, duty shall be charged (where the shares are issued) at the rate of 1,5 % of the issue price or (where the shares are transferred for consideration) at the rate of 1,5 % of the amount or value of the consideration or, (in any other case) at the rate of 1,5 % of the value of the shares and, no subsequent charge is thereafter levied on sales of the shares (or of rights to or over the shares) within the clearance service.

                           c.

                           the operator of a clearance service may, where it receives the approval of the relevant taxation authority, elect that no duty is charged on the transfer or issue of the shares to its clearance service, but that duty is instead charged on each sale of the shares within the clearance service, at the rate of 0,5 % of the consideration. The relevant taxation authority may (and presently does) require, as a condition for its approval of such an election, that the operator of the clearance system seeking to make such an election should make and maintain arrangements (as the taxation authority considers satisfactory) for the collection of the duty within the clearance service and for complying or securing compliance with the regulations in relation to it.

               iv.

               the arrangements in force at the stock exchange in the second Member State require that all shares issued in that jurisdiction must be held in uncertificated form through a single clearance service established in the second Member State, the operator of which has not made the election referred to above?

      (1)  Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ L 249, p. 25).

      (2)  OJ L 156, p. 23.


title: Case C-436/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 13 September 2010 — Belgian State — SPF Finances v BLM SA

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 13 September 2010 — Belgian State — SPF Finances v BLM SA
   (Case C-436/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/22
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Mons

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Belgian State — SPF Finances

      Defendant: BLM SA

      Question referred

   Must Articles 6(2)(a) and 13B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which treats as an exempt supply of services, on the basis that it constitutes a leasing or letting of immovable property within the meaning of Article 13B(b), the private use by a director and his family of part of a building constructed or owned under a right in rem in that property by a taxable legal person, where the input tax on that asset is deductible?

      (1)  OJ 1997 L 145, p. 1


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2002 In Joined Cases C-228/01 and C-289/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de grande instance de Dax): Jacques Bourrasse and Jean-Marie Perchicot (Transport— Directive 84/647/EEC — Use of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road — Registration of hired vehicles — Hired vehicles operating under Community authorisation — Regulation (EEC) No 881/92 — Management of tachograph discs of hired vehicles — Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85)

text:
C 323/22                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         21.12.2002
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,                   party uses in the course of trade a sign which is identical to a validly
D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate                registered trade mark on goods which are identical to those for which
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 Novem-              it is registered, the trade mark proprietor of the mark is entitled, in
ber 2002, in which it:                                                      circumstances such as those in the present case, to rely on Article
                                                                            5(1)(a) of that directive to prevent that use. It is immaterial that, in
                                                                            the context of that use, the sign is perceived as a badge of support for
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                 or loyalty or affiliation to the trade mark proprietor.
2.    Orders Mr Hirschfeldt to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
( 1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 7 November 2002
                      of 12 November 2002
                                                                            In Joined Cases C-228/01 and C-289/01 (Reference for a
in Case C-206/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                   preliminary ruling from the tribunal de grande instance
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery                         de Dax): Jacques Bourrasse and Jean-Marie Perchicot ( 1)
   Division): Arsenal Football Club plc v Matthew Reed (1)
                                                                            (Transport— Directive 84/647/EEC — Use of vehicles hired
(Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/                        without drivers for the carriage of goods by road —
104/EEC — Article 5(1)(a) — Scope of the proprietor’s                       Registration of hired vehicles — Hired vehicles operating
                exclusive right to the trade mark)                          under Community authorisation — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No 881/92 — Management of tachograph discs of hired
                                                                                vehicles — Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85)
                          (2002/C 323/29)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/30)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-206/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales,
Chancery Division, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Arsenal Football Club plc
and Matthew Reed, on the interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) of
the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988                  In Joined Cases C-228/01 and C-289/01: Reference to the
to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade              Court under Article 234 EC by the Cour d’appel de Pau (C-228/
marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), the Court, composed of:                         01) and the Tribunal de grande instance de Dax (C-289/01)
G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,          (France) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers),                    pending before those courts against Jacques Bourrasse (C-228/
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,                  01) and Jean-Marie Perchicot (C-289/01) Third parties: Union
N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                régionale syndicale des petits et moyens transporteurs du Sud-
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the              Ouest (Unostra Aquitaine) (C-228/01), Fédération générale des
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 November 2002, in                     transports et de l’équipement CFDT (FGTE-CFDT) (C-289/01)
which it has ruled:                                                         and Inspection du travail des transports (C-228/01 and C-289/
                                                                            01), and on the interpretation of Article 2 of Council Directive
                                                                            84/647/EEC of 19 December 1984 on the use of vehicles
In a situation which is not covered by Article 6(1) of the First Council    hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road (OJ
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the                 1984 L 335, p. 72), as amended by Council Directive 90/398/
laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, where a third            EEC of 24 July 1990 (OJ 1990 L 202, p. 46), the Court (Second
 ---pagebreak--- 21.12.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 323/23
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting for the President                  (Agents: G. de Bergues and D. Colas also by C. Isidoro):
of the Second Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rappor-                   Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the
teur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,                laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 November 2002,                   comply with Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997
in which it has ruled:                                                       amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the
                                                                             effects of certain public and private projects on the environ-
1.    Articles 3 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 881/92 of              ment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5), alternatively by failing to inform
      26 March 1992 on access to the market in the carriage of               the Commission of those provisions, the French Republic has
      goods by road within the Community to or from the territory of         failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court
      a Member State or passing across the territory of one or more          (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
      Member States, and Article 14 of Council Regulation (EEC)              the Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
      No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment                  V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano,
      in road transport, both in its original version and in that            Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Regis-
      resulting from Council Regulation (EC) No 2135/98 of                   trar, has given a judgment on 7 November 2002, in which it:
      24 September 1998, do not permit a road haulage company
      established in one Member State, which hires out vehicles              1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed time-
      without drivers to a road haulage company established in                     limit all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
      another Member State, to transfer the benefit of its own                     necessary to comply with Article 1(7) and (11) of Council
      Community authorisation to the lessee or to retain the                       Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive
      management of the tachograph discs of the hired vehicles.                    85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public
                                                                                and private projects on the environment, the French Republic
2.    Article 2(1) of Council Directive 84/647/EEC of 19 December                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      1984 on the use of vehicles hired without drivers for the
      carriage of goods by road, as amended by Council Directive 90/         2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
      398/EEC of 24 July 1990, should be interpreted as meaning
      that, subject to the possible application of Article 4 of that
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
      directive, vehicles hired without drivers must be registered in the
      Member State in which the lessee road haulage company is
      established.
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 7 November 2002
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             in Case C-352/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                            (Sixth Chamber)                                                      ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
                         of 7 November 2002                                  (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                                                                                to transpose Directive 98/8/EC)
in Case C-348/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                       ties v French Republic ( 1)                                                       (2002/C 323/32)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
Directive 97/11/EC — Environmental impact assessment of
certain public and private projects — Incomplete transpo-                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                 sition)                                                         in the European Court Reports)
                            (2002/C 323/31)
                                                                             In Case C-352/01, Commission of the European Communities
                      (Language of the case: French)                         (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent:
                                                                             L. Fraguas Gadea): Application for a declaration that, by failing
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                     in the European Court Reports)                          necessary to comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European
                                                                             Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning
                                                                             the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998
                                                                             L 123, p. 1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate them
In Case C-348/01, Commission of the European Communities                     to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
(Agents: G. zur Hausen and J. Adda) v French Republic                        its obligations under that directive, the Court, composed of:


title: Case C-360/03: Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
C 264/20               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                           1.11.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         That period expired without the Republic of Austria having
                                                                        adopted the necessary provisions.
The Republic of Austria was to transpose Directive 90/269/
EEC by the time of its accession to the European Union on               (1) OJ 1990 L 156, p. 14.
1 January 1995.
That period expired without the Republic of Austria having
adopted the necessary provisions.
(1) OJ 1990 L 156, p. 9.
                                                                        Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Austria
                                                                                (Case C-360/03)
Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                                              (2003/C 264/33)
                             Austria
                         (Case C-359/03)
                                                                        An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
                         (2003/C 264/32)                                before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                        on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by Denis Martin, Member of the
                                                                        Legal Service of the European Commission, and Horstpeter
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                   Kreppel, seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service within
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 the framework of an exchange with national officials, with an
on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European                     address for service in Luxembourg.
Communities, represented by Denis Martin, Member of the
Legal Service of the European Commission, and Horstpeter
Kreppel, seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service within              The applicant claims that the Court should:
the framework of an exchange with national officials, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                      1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or to notify the Com-
                                                                              mission of all the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                              provisions necessary fully to comply with Commission
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   Directive 2000/39/EC of 8 June 2000 establishing a first
                                                                              list of indicative occupational exposure limit values in
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or at any rate to                     implementation of Council Directive 98/24/EC on the
      notify the laws, regulations and administrative provisions              protection of the health and safety of workers from the
      necessary fully to comply with Council Directive 90/270/                risks related to chemical agents at work (1), the Republic
      EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health                     of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3
      requirements for work with display screen equipment                     of that directive;
      (fifth individual Directive within the meaning of
      Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1), the Republic          2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
      of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under                   proceedings.
      Article 11 of that directive and the third paragraph of
      Article 249 of the Treaty.
2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
      proceedings.                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The period for transposition expired on 31 December 2001.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        (1) OJ 2000 L 142, p. 47.
The Republic of Austria was to transpose Directive 90/270/
EEC by the time of its accession to the European Union on
1 January 1995.


title: Case C-619/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 29 November 2016 — Sebastian W. Kreuziger v Land Berlin

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 29 November 2016 — Sebastian W. Kreuziger v Land Berlin
   (Case C-619/16)
   (2017/C 038/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Sebastian W. Kreuziger

      Respondent: Land Berlin

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation or practice in accordance with which the entitlement to an allowance in lieu on termination of the employment relationship is excluded where the worker did not apply for paid annual leave even though he could have?

               2.

               Is Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EC to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation or practice in accordance with which the entitlement to an allowance in lieu on termination of the employment relationship presupposes that, for reasons beyond his control, the worker was unable to exercise his right to paid annual leave before the end of the employment relationship?

      (1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).


title: Case C-257/13: Order of the Court of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale des Bouches du Rhône — France) — Anouthani Mlamali v Caisse d’allocations familiales des Bouches-du-Rhône (Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Absence of sufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/11

         Order of the Court of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale des Bouches du Rhône — France) — Anouthani Mlamali v Caisse d’allocations familiales des Bouches-du-Rhône
   (Case C-257/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Absence of sufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility))
   2014/C 102/14
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale des Bouches du Rhône

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Anouthani Mlamali

      Defendant: Caisse d’allocations familiales des Bouches-du-Rhône

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale des Bouches du Rhône — Interpretation of Article 11 of Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44) — Legally resident third-country national — Rejection of a claim for family allowances in respect of a dependent minor child who is himself a third-country national — Non-compliance with the statutory provisions concerning family reunification — Rejection based on the failure provide a medical certificate issued by the Agence nationale de l'accueil des étrangers et des migrations (National Agency for the reception of foreign nationals and migrants) — Equal treatment.

      Operative part of the order

   The request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale des Bouches du Rhône (France), made by decision of 13 May 2013, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case T-232/01: Action brought on 25 September 2001 by Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Excma. Diputación de Guipúzcoa, and the Comunidad autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 331/32               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.11.2001
Action brought on 25 September 2001 by Territorio                       Action brought on 26 September 2001 by Daniel Calle-
Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Excma. Diputación de Guipúz-               baut against the Commission of the European Communi-
coa, and the Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco —                                                      ties
Gobierno Vasco against Commission of the European
                          Communities
                                                                                (Case T-233/01)
                         (Case T-232/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 331/53)
                         (2001/C 331/52)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 26 September 2001 by Daniel
European Communities on 25 September 2001 by the Territo-
                                                                        Callebaut, residing in Mondorf-les-Bains, Luxembourg, rep-
rio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Excma. Diputación de Guipúz-
                                                                        resented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, avocats,
coa, and the Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco — Gobierno
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Vasco, Guipúzcoa (Spain), represented by Ramón Falcón,
lawyer.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the Commission decision not to promote the
—     annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission                    applicant to Grade B 2 in the 2000 promotions,
      which is contested in this action, in the alternative, annul
      Article 3 of that decision,
                                                                        —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants contest Commission Decision of 11 July 2001              The applicant in the present case challenges the refusal of the
declaring incompatible with the common market the tax                   appointing authority to promote him in the promotions for
reductions arising from Article 26 of Norma Foral (Regional             2000.
Law) No 7/1996 of 4 July 1996, on corporation tax (Boletı́n
Oficial de Guipúzcoa of 17 July 1996), which provides for a
reduction of 99 %, 75 %, 50 % and 25 % of the basis for
assessment of the aforementioned tax applicable during the              In support of his claim, he invokes:
four first tax years for undertakings which set up business in
the Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa with effect from the
entry into force of the Law, provided that they have disbursed          —     Breach of Articles 26 and 45 of the Staff Regulations;
capital amounting to more than ESP 20 million
(EUR 120 202), invest more than ESP 80 million
(EUR 430 810) and create more than 10 new jobs.                         —     Infringement of the audi alteram partem principle and
                                                                              infringement of the principles of equal treatment,
                                                                              entitlement to pursue a career, and sound administration;
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicants are identical with those put forward in Case                 —     Existence in this case of a manifest error of assessment.
T-227/01.


               10.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/7

         Action brought on 9 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-16/13)
   2013/C 294/07
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 9 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider and Catherine Howdle, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               declare that by failing (i) to adopt, or (ii) to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 7b of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2008/122/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday product, resale and exchange contracts), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement;

               2.

               order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The present application by the EFTA Surveillance Authority addresses the failure by Iceland to comply, no later than 11 September 2012, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 11 July 2012 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2008/122/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday product, resale and exchange contracts (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 7b of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that it has no information before it that could indicate that the Act has been fully implemented.


title: Case T-584/08: Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2011 — Cantiere Navale De Poli v Commission (State aid — Temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding — Alteration planned by the Italian authorities to an aid scheme previously authorised by the Commission — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market)

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2011 — Cantiere Navale De Poli v Commission
   (Case T-584/08) (1)

   (State aid - Temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding - Alteration planned by the Italian authorities to an aid scheme previously authorised by the Commission - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market)
   2011/C 89/34
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Cantiere Navale De Poli SpA (Venice, Italy) (represented initially by: A. Abate and R. Longanesi Cattani, and subsequently by A. Abate and A. Franchi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Righini, C. Urraca Caviedes and V. Di Bucci, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/38/EC of 21 October 2008 on State aid C-20/08 (ex N 62/08) which Italy is planning to implement through a modification of scheme N 59/04 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding (OJ 2010 L 17, p. 50).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Cantiere Navale De Poli SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.