title: Case T-279/02: Action brought on 16 September 2002 by Degussa AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
9.11.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 274/35
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Applicant for Com-             Calpis Co, Ltd (formerly The Cal-         —     annul the decision in the open competition COUNCIL/A/
munity trade mark:             pis Food Industry Co, Ltd)                      393 to give her a mark less than the minimum required
                                                                               for her oral test and not placing her on the reserve list;
Community trade mark           Word mark ‘CALPICO’ for goods
applied for:                   in Classes 29, 30 and 32 —                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                               application No 225169
Owner of the opposing          The applicant
trade mark or sign:                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
Opposing trade mark or         German word mark ‘CALYPSO’
sign right:                    for goods in Class 32                     In support of her action, the applicant relies on a breach of the
                                                                         obligation to state the reasons on which the decision was
Decision of Opposition         Rejection of opposition                   based. The applicant argues that the defendant ought to have
Division:                                                                informed her of the marks that she was given in respect of the
                                                                         various criteria that the selection board was required to
                                                                         consider.
Decision of Board of           Dismissal of applicant’s appeal
Appeal:
                                                                         In addition, the applicant relies on the breach of the legal
Pleas in law:                  —    Likelihood of confusion              framework constituted by the notice of open competition
                                    between trade marks within           COUNCIL/A/393 and the breach of the principle of equal
                                    the meaning of Article               treatment. The applicant argues that the selection board was
                                    8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)           bound to assess her general and professional knowledge and
                                    No 40/94 ( 1);                       qualifications in an interview in Greek. That interview was
                               —    Infringement of the principle        held in other languages.
                                    of the right to a fair hearing.
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
     Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                         Action brought on 16 September 2002 by Degussa AG
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-279/02)
Action brought on 9 September 2002 by Athanacia-                                                  (2002/C 274/62)
 Nancy Pascall against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                          (Case T-277/02)
                         (2002/C 274/61)                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 16 September 2002 by Degussa
                   (Language of the Case: French)                        AG, Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by R. Bechthold,
                                                                         M. Karl and W. Berg, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                         bourg.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Communities on 9 September 2002 by Athanacia-Nancy
Pascall, domiciled in Brussels, represented by Albert Coolen,            —     declare the Commission Decision of 2 July 2002 (Case
Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address                  C. 373519 — Methionine) void, in so far as it concerns
for service in Luxembourg.                                                     the applicant;
 ---pagebreak--- C 274/36               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    9.11.2002
—     in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed by Article 3 of        Finally, the Commission has disregarded the presumption of
      the Decision;                                                      innocence, as it gave information to the economic press about
                                                                         the expected amount of the fine even before the decision was
                                                                         taken and that information was even published. An unbiased
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                             decision was thus no longer possible.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Action brought on 18 September 2002 by Norma Le-
                                                                         bensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG against the Office
The applicant contests the Decision of the Commission by                 for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
which a fine of EUR 118 125 000 was imposed on the                                                 and Designs)
applicant for breach of Article 81(1) EC. The Commission
claimed that the applicant and other undertakings concerned
— various producers of methionine — took part in a                                               (Case T-281/02)
continuous agreement and/or concerted practice. According
to the Commission’s findings, the applicant took part in such
arrangements from February 1986 until February 1999.                                             (2002/C 274/63)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant submits that in setting the fine the Commission
did not correctly assess the duration of the infringement. The
Commission assumed that the breach lasted from 1986 until
1999. In so doing it disregarded the fact that the agreements            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
ended in 1988, and that a fresh decision to enter into                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
agreements was made only in 1992. The Commission has not                 Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
proved that there was a single continuous breach as it alleged.          18 September 2002 by Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH
Furthermore, the Commission made several errors in setting               & Co KG, Nürnberg (Germany), represented by S. Rojahn and
the basic amount of the fine. In assessing the breach as a               St. Freytag, lawyers.
‘particularly serious breach’ of Article 81(1) EC it incorrectly
assessed the findings required as to the specific effect on the
relevant market. This must be viewed as an error of assessment           The applicant claims that the Court should:
and the Commission is thereby in breach of its own guidelines
on setting fines.
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
                                                                               Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                               Marks and Designs) of 3 July 2002 (1);
The applicant also submits that the Commission based the fine
imposed on Degussa AG on the size of the undertaking in                  —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
2001 and thereby disregarded the fact that, since the ending
of the anti-competitive agreements Degussa has been involved
in two mergers of undertakings. The Commission should have
based its decision on the fine solely on the turnover of the part
of the current undertaking which corresponds to the former               Pleas in law and main arguments
Degussa AG Frankfurt am Main. In that respect the Com-
mission infringed the principle of liability.                            Community trade mark         Word mark ‘Mehr für Ihr Geld’ —
                                                                         applied for:                 application No 1669167
                                                                         Goods or services:           Goods and services of Classes 3,
The applicant submits, moreover, that the Commission’s                                                29, 30 and 35 (inter alia, bleach-
method of setting the fine did not meet the constitutional                                            ing preparations and other sub-
requirement of certainty. In the Commission’s use of Article 15                                       stances for laundry use, meat, cof-
of Regulation No 17/62 the invalidity of this basis for                                               fee and marketing)
authorisation is clear as it gives the Commission an unlimited
authority to impose fines, which is not consistent with the              Decision        contested    Refusal of registration by the
principles concerning the certainty of legal consequences of             before the Board of          examiner
unlawful acts.                                                           Appeal:


title: Action brought on 9 June 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland (Case C-213/98)

text:
C 258/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  15.8.98
financial controls of insurance companies), the exceptions          The applicant claims that the Court should:
to the freedom to provide services and the right of
establishment are those provided for by that directive and
not those which result from the application of Article 55           Ð find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
of the EC Treaty.                                                       under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws,
                                                                        regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
(1) OJ L 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1.                                        comply with Council Directive 92/100/EEC of
                                                                        19 November 1992 on rental and lending rights
                                                                        related to copyright in the field of intellectual
                                                                        property (1), and/or by failing to inform the
                                                                        Commission thereof,
Reference      for    a    preliminary    ruling    by    the
                                                                        and
Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 31 March
 1998 in case of Ramazan Örs against Bundesknappschaft
                       (Case C-211/98)
                                                                    Ð order Ireland to bear the costs of this procedure.
                        (98/C 258/37)
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundessozial-
gericht (Federal Social Court) of 31 March 1998, received
                                                                    Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
at the Court Registry on 8 June 1998, for a preliminary
                                                                    be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
ruling in the case of Ramazan Örs against Bundesknapp-
                                                                    Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
schaft (Federal Insurance Fund for Miners) on the
                                                                    Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
following questions:
                                                                    down in the directive. That period expired on 1 July 1994
                                                                    without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary to
1. Is there, on the basis of the law relating to the                comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
    Association between the European Economic                       the Commission and/or informing the Commission
    Community        and     Turkey,   a    prohibition    of       thereof.
    discrimination in the field of social security which is
    directly applicable to a Turkish worker in the Federal          (1) OJ L 346 of 27.11.1992, p. 61.
    Republic of Germany?
2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is that
    prohibition to be interpreted as precluding a national
    provision under which the applicable date of birth for
    statutory pension insurance benefits and for the
    insurance number assigned in that regard is the date            Action brought on 10 June 1998 by the Commission of
    which was documented when the Turkish worker was                 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
    first registered with a national social benefit
    institution?                                                                           (Case C-214/98)
                                                                                (98/C 258/39)
                                                                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
                                                                    before the Court of Justice on 10 June 1998 by the
Action brought on 9 June 1998 by the Commission of the              Commission of the European Communities, represented
           European Communities against Ireland                     by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service, with an
                       (Case C-213/98)                              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                    Gómez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal
                        (98/C 258/38)                               Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 9 June 1998 by               The applicant claims that the Court should declare that:
the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Karen Banks, a member of its Legal
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the           Ð by failing to refer to the category of solipeds/equidae
office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its                   in the list of meat to which the fees laid down by
Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                    Council Directive 93/118/EC (1) apply,


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 March 2005 in Case C-128/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Dendermonde in the criminal proceedings against Annic Andréa Raemdonck and Raemdonck-Janssens BVBA (Road transport — Social legislation — Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 — Requirement to instal and use a tachograph — Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 — Exception for vehicles carrying material and equipment)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 17 March 2005
   in Case C-128/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Dendermonde in the criminal proceedings against Annic Andréa Raemdonck and Raemdonck-Janssens BVBA (1)

   (Road transport - Social legislation - Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 - Requirement to instal and use a tachograph - Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 - Exception for vehicles carrying material and equipment)
   (2005/C 132/21)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-128/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Dendermonde (Belgium), made by decision of 19 January 2004, received at the Court on 9 March 2004, in the criminal proceedings against Annic Andréa Raemdonck and Raemdonck-Janssens BVBA — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 March 2005, in which it ruled:

               1.

               The terms ‘material or equipment’ in Article 13(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport must, in the context of the exemption scheme provided for in Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport, be construed as covering not only ‘tools and instruments’, but also the goods, such as building materials or cables, which are required for the performance of the work involved in the main activity of the driver of the vehicle concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.


title: Removal from the register of C-348/95

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 7/11
national deriving taxable income from employment in                         Removal from the register of C-376/95 (1)
Germany without having a permanent residence or usual                                        (98/C 7/28)
abode there and his spouse, who is not permanently
separated from him and likewise has no permanent
residence or usual abode in Germany and earns income               By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
abroad, are not to be treated as persons subject to                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
unlimited taxation for the purposes of applying                    removal from the register of Case C-376/95 (reference for
Paragraph 26.1, sentence 1, EStG (joint assessment) on the         a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova):
ground that the combined income of the spouses for the             Cesare Regnoli & Figlio Srl v. Amministrazione delle
calendar year in question does not fall to at least 90 %           Finanze dello Stato.
within the German EStG, or that the income not subject
to the German EStG amounts to more than DM 24 000?                 (1) OJ C 16, 20. 1. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-229/95 (1)                           Removal from the register of C-19/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/29)
                          (98/C 7/25)
                                                                   By order of 20 October 1997, the President of the Court
By order of 24 September 1997, the President of the Court          of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             removal from the register of Case C-19/96 (Reference for
removal from the register of Case C-229/95 (reference for          a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Travail (Labour
a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Wiesbaden):           Court) Nivelles): Vito Casano v. Institut National
Simone Moll v. Berhane Mesghena.                                   d'Assurance Maladie InvaliditeÂ, Union Nationale des
                                                                   MutualiteÂs Libres.
(1) OJ C 229, 2. 9. 1995.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 77, 16. 3. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-333/95 (1)
                          (98/C 7/26)                                        Removal from the register of C-86/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/30)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-333/95 (reference for          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): F.lli          removal from the register of Case C-86/96 (reference for a
Carli SpA and Others v. Amministrazione delle Finanze              preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione
delle Stato.                                                       Prima Civile): Palmera SpA v. Amministrazione delle
                                                                   Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 351, 30. 12. 1995.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-348/95 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of C-87/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/27)
                                                                                (98/C 7/31)
By order of 7 October 1997, the President of the Court of          By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-348/95 (reference for          removal from the register of Case C-87/96 (reference for a
a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal                     preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione
Administrativo): FaÂbrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda. v.         Prima Civile): Cesare Regnoli & Figlio Srl v.
MinisteÂrio PuÂblico and Fazenda PuÂblica.                         Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 351, 30. 12. 1995.                                        (1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.


title: Case C-336/01: Action brought on 7 September 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
10.11.2001            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 317/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-                     intended to facilitate for these operators the right to
richt Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 17 July                    freedom of establishment in national and international
2001 in the ,case of Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V.                           transport operations (1), as regards the transportation of
 against Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung                      passengers, or at any rate by failing to notify those
                                                                             measures to the Commission, the French Republic has
                                                                             failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                         (Case C-334/01)
                                                                       (2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                         (2001/C 317/26)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Frankfurt am Main (Administrative Court, Frankfurt am Main)            Pleas in law and main arguments
of 17 July 2001, received at the Court Registry on 7 September
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Glencore
Grain Rotterdam B.V. v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
Ernährung on the following question:                                   advanced in Case C-323/01 (2); the time-limit for transposition
                                                                       expired on 1 October 1999.
Should the second indent of the second subparagraph of
Article 8(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2372/95 of
10 October 1995 (1) be interpreted as meaning that                     (1) OJ L 277 of 14.10.1998, p. 17.
Article 47(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of             (2) See page 12 of this Official Journal.
27 November 1987 (2) must be simply applied by analogy, so
that the 12-month time-limit for supplying proof of import-
ation into the ACP State concerned does not begin to run until
the primary obligation imposed by that regulation, namely
importation into the ACP State, is fulfilled?
(1) OJ 1995 L 242, p. 3.
(2) OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1.
                                                                       Action brought on 7 September 2001 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-336/01)
Action brought on 7 September 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic                                           (2001/C 317/28)
                         (Case C-335/01)
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                         (2001/C 317/27)                               7 September 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by M. Wolfcarius, acting as Agent,
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 September
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Wolfcarius, acting as Agent, with an address         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
for service in Luxembourg.                                             the Court should:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                 1.    declare that, by failing to adopt ale the laws, regulations
the Court should:                                                            and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                             with Directive 98/78/EC of the European Parliament and
                                                                             of the Council of 27 October 1998 on the supplementary
(1) declare that, by fading to adopt all the laws, regulations
                                                                             supervision of insurance undertakings in an insurance
      and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                             group (1), or at any rate by failing to notify those measures
      with Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 October 1998
                                                                             to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
      amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the occu-
                                                                             to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      pation of road haulage operator and road passenger
      transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas,
      certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications         2.    order Belgium to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 317/16                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.11.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Action brought on 12 September 2001 by the Federal
                                                                             Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case C-323/01 (2); the time-limit for transposition
expired on 5 June 2000.
                                                                                (Case C-344/01)
( 1) OJ L 330 of 5.12.1998, p. 1.
(2) See page 12 of this Official Journal.
                                                                                (2001/C 317/30)
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo                    ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Social No 33 de Madrid by an order of 3 September                            Communities on 12 September 2001 by the Federal Republic
2001 in the case of Marı́a Paz Merino Gómez against                         of Germany represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat
              Continental Industrias riel Caucho S.A.                        and Moritz Lumma, Oberregierungsrat, Bundesministerium
                                                                             der Finanzen, Graurheindorfter Str. 108, D-53117 Bonn.
                            (Case C-342/01)
                            (2001/C 317/29)
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Juzgado de lo Social
No 33 de Madrid (Social Court, Madrid) of 3 September 2001,                  1.    Annul the Commissions decision of 11 July 2001
which was received at the Court Registry on 12 September                           (K(2001) 1795 final) excluding from Community finan-
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Marı́a Paz Merino                    cing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States
Grómez against Continental Industrias riel Caucho S.A.. The                       under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Madrid asks the Court of Justice                     Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (1).
to rule on the following questions:
1.      Where collective agreements between an employer and                  2.    Order the defendant to pay the costs.
        workers’ representatives fix the timing of leave for the
        entire workforce, and where the dates in question coincide
        with those of a worker’s maternity leave, do Article 7(1)
        of Directive 93/104 (1), Article 11 (2) (a) of Directive
        92/85 (2) and Article 5(1) of Directive 76/207 (3) guaran-
        tee that worker’s entitlement to take annual leave during
        a period other than the one agreed, which does not                   Pleas in law and main arguments
        coincide with her period of maternity leave?
2.      If the first question is answered in the affirmative, what is        —     Infringement of an essential procedural requirement
        the substantive scope of the entitlement to annual leave?                  (inadequate communication of the facts). The application
        Does it cover exclusively the four weeks’ leave referred to                of conclusions reached on the three Länder which were
        in Article 7(1) of Directive 93/104, or does it extend to                  examined for the purposes of suckler-cow premiums to
        the thirty calendar days laid down by national legislation,                the other Länder which were not examined does not
        in Article 38(1) of Royal Decree-Law 1/95, the Workers’                    appear to be justified per se having regard to the decentrali-
        Statute?                                                                   sed administrative system required by constitutional law
                                                                                in Germany. The Federal Government, rather, regards the
                                                                                grounds for refusing the premiums to those Länder which
(1) Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning
     certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ L 307 of              were not examined in this case to be wholly unfounded
     13.12.1993, p. 18).                                                           on a number of grounds. For that reason, similar
(2) Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduc-                conclusions were not reached in the area of suckler-cow
     tion of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and                  premiums following very recent studies, that is to say, in
     health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have                       Brandenburg and Niedersachsen in 1996 and in Rhein-
     recently given birth or are breastfeeding (OJ L 348 of 28.11.1992,            land-Pfalz in 1999.
     p. 1).
(3) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
     implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and                Therefore, by reversing the burden of proof so that it
     women as regards access to employment, vocational training and                fell on Germany without any concrete reasons, the
     promotion, and working conditions (OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40).              Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to provide
                                                                                evidence of an infringement of Community law in the
                                                                                area of suckler-cow premiums.


title: Case C-104/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 5 March 2014  — Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali v Federazione Italiana Consorzi Agrari and Others

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 5 March 2014 — Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali v Federazione Italiana Consorzi Agrari and Others
   (Case C-104/14)
   2014/C 184/13
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali

      Defendants: Federazione Italiana Consorzi Agrari Soc. coop. a r.l. — Federconsorzi in concordato preventivo Liquidazione Giudiziale dei Beni Ceduti ai Creditori della Federazione Italiana Consorzi Agrari Soc. coop. a r.l.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the statute-based agreement between the State administrative authorities and groups of agricultural cooperatives (an agreement under which arose a claim that was subsequently assigned to the Consorzi alla Federconsorzi [an association of agricultural cooperatives] and, in turn, to the latter’s creditors in the context of insolvency proceedings) for the supply and distribution of agricultural products, as established by Legislative Decree No 169/1948 and Law No 1294/1957, covered by the definition of a commercial transaction, as defined in Article 2 of Directive 2000/35/EC (1) and Article 2 of Directive 2011/7/EU? (2)

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, do the transposition requirements of Directive 2000/35/EC (Article 6(2)) and Directive 2011/7/EU (Article 12(3)), under which it is possible to maintain in force provisions which are more favourable, mean that it is not possible to alter for the worse, or indeed to exclude, the late-payment interest rate applicable to agreements that were already in existence when the directives entered into force?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, must the obligation not to alter for the worse the late-payment interest rate applicable to agreements that were already in existence be construed as imposing — as regards a legislative measure governing interest, which provides, up to a certain point (in the present case, from 31 January 1982 to 31 December 1995), for the application of a non-statutory rate and compound interest, even on an annual basis and not six-monthly, as claimed by the creditor, and, after that point, only for the payment of statutory interest — a set of rules which, in view of the particular circumstances of the dispute at issue, is not necessarily unfavourable to the creditor?

               4.

               In so far Directive 2000/35/EC and Directive 2011/7/EU provide, in Articles 3(3) and 7 respectively, in relation to the prohibition of the abuse of freedom of contact to the disadvantage of the creditor, that unfair contractual terms and practices are invalid, do the transposition requirements of those directives (Articles 6 and 12, respectively) have the effect of precluding the State from adopting measures which, as regards agreements to which the State is a party and which were in existence at the time the directives entered into force, exclude late-payment interest?

               5.

               If the answer to Question 4 is in the affirmative, does the prohibition on intervening in agreements that are already in existence and to which the State is a party by adopting measures which preclude late-payment interest impose — as regards a legislative measure governing interest, which provides, up to a certain point (in the present case, from 31 January 1982 to 31 December 1995), for the application of a non-statutory rate and compound interest, even on an annual basis and not six-monthly, as claimed by the creditor, and, after that point, only for the payment of statutory interest — a set of rules which, in view of the particular circumstances of the dispute at issue, is not necessarily unfavourable to the creditor?’

      (1)  Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35).

      (2)  Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1).


title: Case T-731/14: Action brought on 17 October 2014 — Agrotikos Sinetairismos Profiti Ilia v Council

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/41

      Action brought on 17 October 2014 — Agrotikos Sinetairismos Profiti Ilia v Council
      (Case T-731/14)
      (2015/C 016/64)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: Agrotikos Sinetairismos Profiti Ilia (Skidra, Greece) (represented by: C. Chrysogonos, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested Council Regulation (ΕU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014. L 229, p. 1) and declare that the claim for annulment should be admissible in so far as the General Court of the European Union decides that all the conditions for the admissibility of the action for annulment are met; and

                  —

                  declare that the Council is liable to meet the costs incurred by the applicant and order the Council to pay its costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action the applicant relies on a single plea in law.

                  1.

                  The ground for annulment is an error in the choice of legal basis:

                              —

                              The applicant maintains that the contested regulation was erroneously adopted on the legal basis of Article 215 TFEU, although it is apparent from the objective and content of the regulation that it ought to have been adopted on the basis of Article 207 TFEU (formerly Article 133 EC) with regard to the common commercial policy and, consequently, ought to have been adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure. The applicant’s legal interest to bring proceedings is based on the fact that the contested measure is a regulatory act which does not entail any implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and is of direct concern to the applicant.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen by orders of that court of 29 May 1995 in the cases of Firma SAM Schiffahrt GmbH v. Federal Republic of Germany and Heinz Stapf v. Federal Republic of Germany (Cases C-248/95 and C-249/95)

text:
No C 248/6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       23 . 9 . 95
If that question is answered in the affirmative, the following           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat
question is referred to the Court of Justice of the European             du Grand-duche de Luxembourg, Comite du Contentieux
Communities for a preliminary ruling:                                    by judgment of that court of 12 July 1995 in the case of
                                                                         Futura Participations SA and Singer against Administration
'In the case of a request that candidates be proposed for                                        des Contributions
posts in the administration of the Commission of the                                               ( Case C-250/95 )
European Communities, made during a meeting between
the Permanent Representatives and the Secretary:General of                                            ( 95/C 248/ 11 )
the Commission and directly addressed to the Member
States with no other form of publicity, or outhwith a                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
recruitment procedure published in the Official Journal of               European Communities by a judgment of the Conseil d'Etat
the European Communities, is such a request valid,                       du Grand-duche de Luxembourg, Comite du Contentieux
particularly having regard to the rules governing the                    ( Council of State of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg,
recruitment of members of the temporary staff and officials              Judicial Division ) of 12 July 1995 , which was received at the
of the Commission ?'                                                     Court Registry on 19 July 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                         the case of Futura Participations SA and Singer against
                                                                         Administration des Contributions on the following
                                                                         question :
                                                                         Are Article 157 of the Law on income tax and, in so far as is
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwal                  necessary, Article 4 and the second subparagraph of
tungsgerichtNordrhein- Westfalen by orders of that court of              Article 24 ( 2 ) of the France-Luxembourg Convention on
29 May 1995 in the cases of Firirta SAM Schiffahrt GmbH v.               double taxation compatible with Article 52 of the EC Treaty
Federal Republic of Germany and Heinz Stapf v. Federal                   inasmuch as they make the application to non-resident
                        Republic of Germany                              taxpayers having a permanent business'in Luxembourg of
                ( Cases C-248/95 and C-249/95 )                          provisions on the carrying forward of losses subject to the
                                                                         condition that the losses should be related to income
                              ( 95/C 248/10
                                                                         received locally and that accounts should be duly made up
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                          and kept within the country ?
of the European Communities by orders of the
 Oberverwaltungsgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen ( Higher
Administrative Court, North Rhine Westphalia ) of 29 May
 1995 , which were received at the Court Registry on 19 July
 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Firma SAM               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes
Schiffahrt GmbH v. Federal Republic of Germany and                       gerichtshof by order of that court of 29 June 1995 in the
                                                                                case of Sabel BY v. Puma AG
Heinz Stapf v. Federal Republic of Germany on the
following questions :                                                                               ( Case C-251/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 248/12 )
 1 . was     the adoption of Council Regulation ( EEC )
       No    1101 /89 (*), Commission Regulation ( EEC )                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       No   1102/89 ( 2 ) and Commission Regulation ( EEC )               European Communities by an order of the First Civil Senate
       No   3685/89 ( 3 ) appropriate within the meaning of               of the Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court of Justice ) of
       Article 75 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty ?                          29 June 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                          20 July 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Sabel BV
 2 . If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, can those         v. Puma AG on the following questions :
       regulations become invalid if, subsequently to their
       adoption, they cease to be appropriate within the                  With reference to the interpretation of Article 4 ( 1 ) ( b )
       meaning of Article 75 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty ?               of the First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to
                                                                          approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
 3 . If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, were the          marks ( 89/104/EEC ) ('):
       Regulations still appropriate at the relevant time for the
       levying of the 1990 contributions to the Scrapping                 is it sufficient for a finding that there is a risk of confusion
       Fund ?                                                             between a sign composed of text and picture and a sign
                                                                          consisting merely of a picture, which is registered for
 4. Does the obligation laid down in the Regulations to                   identical and similar goods and is not especially well known
       pay contributions for 1990 infringe fundamental                    in commerce, that the two signs coincide as to their
       Community rights or other Community law, in                        signification ( in this case, a leaping feline beast of prey )?
       particular the right to property, the right to pursue a
       trade or profession, the principle of equality and the             What is the significance in this connection of the wording of
       principle of proportionality ?                                     the Directive, according to which the risk of confusion
                                                                          includes the likelihood that a mark may be associated with
 0 ) OJ No L 116 , 28 . 4 . 1989 , p . 25 .                                an earlier mark ?
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 116 , 28 . 4 . 1989 , p . 30 .
 ( 3 ) OJ No L 360 , 9 . 12 . 1989 , p . 20 .                              (') OJ No L 40 , 11 . 2 . 1989 , p . 1 .


title: Case C-575/14 P: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Contract relating to European Union financial support for a project in the context of the ‘eContent’ programme — Termination of the contract by the European Commission — Payment of amounts not paid and compensation for loss allegedly suffered by the applicant — Distortion of evidence in the file — Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded as to the remainder — Application to amend the decision of the General Court of the European Union on costs — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/16

         Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
   (Case C-575/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Arbitration clause - Contract relating to European Union financial support for a project in the context of the ‘eContent’ programme - Termination of the contract by the European Commission - Payment of amounts not paid and compensation for loss allegedly suffered by the applicant - Distortion of evidence in the file - Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded as to the remainder - Application to amend the decision of the General Court of the European Union on costs - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 294/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: M. Sfyri and I. Ampazis, dikigoroi)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Cappelletti and S. Delaude, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal,

               2.

               Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 5 August 2003 in Case T-79/03 R: Industrie riunite odolesi SpA (IRO) v Commission of the European Communities (Procedure for interim relief — Competition — Payment of a fine — Bank guarantee — Urgency — None)

text:
15.11.2003             EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 275/45
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Luxembourg, against European Parliament (Agents: H. von
                                                                            Hertzen and L. Knudsen) — application for annulment of the
                         of 25 June 2003                                    decision of the Parliament not to pay to the applicant the sum
                                                                            corresponding to the deductions made from the salary of his
in Case T-41/01: Rafael Pérez Escolar v Commission of                       ex-wife between March and November 1998 — the Court of
                the European Communities (1)                                First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts,
                                                                            President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
(State aid — Complaint — Action for failure to act —                        given a judgment on 15 July 2003, in which it:
                   Standing — Admissibility)
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible.
                         (2003/C 275/74)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                          2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-41/01: Rafael Pérez Escolar, residing in Madrid,
represented by F. Moreno Pardo, lawyer, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: I. Martínez del Peral and J. Flett) —
application under Article 232 EC for a declaration that the
Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
Treaty by failing to adopt any decision whatever regarding the              ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
complaint made by the applicant against the Kingdom of                                                    INSTANCE
Spain for infringement of Article 87 EC and by failing to
initiate the procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC with
regard to the State aid allegedly granted by the Spanish                                             of 5 August 2003
authorities to Banco Español de Crédito SA — the Court
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of V. Tiili, President of the Chamber, J. Pirrung,                 in Case T-79/03 R: Industrie riunite odolesi SpA (IRO) v
P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,                            Commission of the European Communities
Registrar, made an order on 25 June 2003, the operative part
of which is as follows:
                                                                            (Procedure for interim relief — Competition — Payment of
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                                 a fine — Bank guarantee — Urgency — None)
2.    The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 275/76)
(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            In Case T-79/03 R, Industrie riunite odolesi SpA (IRO),
                                                                            established in Odolo (Italy), (lawyer: A. Giardina), supported
                          of 15 July 2003                                   by the Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia) v Commission
                                                                            of the European Communities (Agents: L. Pignataro and
 in Case T-371/02: Bernard Barbé v European Parliament                      A. Whelan) — application to suspend operation of the
                                                                            Commission Decision of 17 December 2002 relating to a
(Attachment of earnings procedure — Failure to pay to the                   proceeding under Article 65 CS (COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing
attaching creditor deductions from salary made prior to                     bars), in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 3,58 million on the
termination of attachment of earnings — Manifest inadmis-                   applicant, — the President of the Court of First Instance made
                               sibility)                                    an order on 5 August 2003, the operative part of which is as
                                                                            follows:
                         (2003/C 275/75)
                    (Language of the case: French)                          1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                            2.    The costs are reserved.
In Case T-371/02: Bernard Barbé, official of the European
Parliament, residing in Luxembourg (Luxembourg), represent-
ed by A. Lorang, lawyer, with an address for service in


title: Case T-358/15: Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Arrom Conseil v OHIM — Puig France (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/80

         Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Arrom Conseil v OHIM — Puig France (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci)
   (Case T-358/15)
   (2015/C 294/96)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Arrom Conseil (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp and J. Blanchard, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Puig France SAS (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Roméo has a gun by Romano Ricci’ — Community trade mark application No 11 193 604

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2015 in Case R 1020/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in part;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-152/99: Action brought on 24 June 1999 by Hijos de Andrés Molina S.A. (in liquidation) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
28.8.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 246/43
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:            Pleas in law and main arguments
— annul Commission Decision C (1999) 533 of 4 March
     1999 or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the grant         This is an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision
     to be repaid to the Commission to such extent as may be             (C(1999)41 final) of 3 February 1999 on State aid awarded by
     decided in the course of the proceedings;                           the Spanish Government to the applicant company. In that
                                                                         decision, the Commission declared that the Spanish authorities
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 had granted to Hijos de Andrés Molina S.A. — a producer of
                                                                         meat, dairy products and animal feed, now in liquidation —
                                                                         State aid incompatible with the EC Treaty, and that that
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          amount should be repaid.
The applicant contests Commission Decision C (1999) 533 of               In support of its claims, the applicant alleges the following
4 March 1999, which reduces the contribution made to one                 grounds for annulment:
of its subsidiaries by the Commission under Commission
Decision C (96) 2235 of 13 September 1996 concerning grant               — infringement of Articles 87 and 88(3) of the EC Treaty [ex
of the EAGGF, Guidance Section, contribution under Council                    Articles 92 and 93(3)], in so far as the aid granted prior to
Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 (1), in connection with Project                   1995 must be regarded as compatible with the common
No 95.ES.06.005 entitled ‘Demonstrative project for the                       market;
processing of castor-oil plants (Ricinus Communis) in agricul-
tural undertakings for the extraction of natural aromatic
essences’.                                                               — manifest error in the findings of fact and infringement of
                                                                              Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty in that the steps taken by
                                                                              the public creditors in the legal proceedings for suspension
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in                  of payments cannot be considered to constitute State aid
Case T-141/99 Vela s.r.l. v Commission.                                       because they do not meet the requirement of specificity
                                                                              nor do they comply with the rules of Spanish competition
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988                   law;
    laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No
    2052/88 as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (OJ L 337 of           — infringement of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty in that the
    24.12.1994, p. 11).                                                       Commission considered the increase in capital by way of
                                                                              credit set-off on the part of the applicant to constitute
                                                                              State aid;
                                                                         — manifest error in the findings of fact and infringement of
                                                                              Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty and of the Community
                                                                              rules applicable in the area of State aid for the restructuring
Action brought on 24 June 1999 by Hijos de Andrés                             and rescue of companies, in that the rescue aid granted to
Molina S.A. (in liquidation) against the Commission of the                    the applicant between May and December 1995 was not
                    European Communities                                      considered to be compatible with the common market.
                         (Case T-152/99)                                 The applicant company also alleges that the contested decision
                                                                         fails to take into account that the restructuring plan drawn up
                        (1999/C 246/85)                                  by it fulfils the requirements of compatibility with the common
                                                                         market since that plan clearly reduced the applicant’s pro-
                                                                         duction capacity, re-established its viability and succeeded in
                                                                         protecting the interests of third parties in the procedure which
                  (Language of the case: Spanish )
                                                                         led to its reprivatisation.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Further, the applicant is also of the view that the decision fails
European Communities on 24 June 1999 by Hijos de Andrés                  to take into account the principle that reasons must be given
Molina S.A., whose registered office is in Seville, Spain,               for measures adopted. In particular, it claims in that regard
represented by Luis Manuel Olivencia Brugger and José Luis               that the decision simply precludes the possible application of
Ballester Garcı́a-Izquierdo, with an address for service in              Article 87(3)(a) without complying with the corresponding
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Arendt, 7 Val Ste. Croix,              obligations to provide reasons which arise by virtue of the
B.P. 522.                                                                discretion enjoyed.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Finally, the applicant company challenges whether the require-
                                                                         ment that intra-Community trade be affected applies in this
— annul the Commission’s decision of 3 February 1999 on                  case.
     the State aid granted by the Spanish Government to Hijos
     de Andrés Molina S.A.;
— order that the Commission pay the costs.


title: Case T-187/13: Order of the General Court of 20 February 2014 — Jannatian v Council (Action for annulment  — Common foreign and security policy  — Restrictive measures against Iran  — List of persons and entities to which those restrictive measures apply  — Period within which an action must be brought  — Action brought out of time  — Inadmissibility)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/38

         Order of the General Court of 20 February 2014 — Jannatian v Council
   (Case T-187/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - List of persons and entities to which those restrictive measures apply - Period within which an action must be brought - Action brought out of time - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 135/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mahmoud Jannatian (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: E. Rosenfeld and S. Monnerville, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, in so far as they concern the applicant, of: (i) Council Common Position 2008/479/CFSP of 23 June 2008 amending Common Position 2007/140/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 163, p. 43); (ii) Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29); (iii) Council Common Position 2008/652/CFSP of 7 August 2008 amending Common Position 2007/140/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 213, p. 58); (iv) Council Decision 2009/840/CFSP of 17 November 2009 implementing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2009 L 303, p. 64); (v) Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2009 of 17 November 2009 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Decision 2008/475/EC (OJ 2009 L 303, p. 31); (vi) Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39); (vii) Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81); (viii) Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1); and (ix) Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Mahmoud Jannatian shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case T-418/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 June 2009 — LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH v OHIM — Dagmar Causley (LiBRO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark LiBRO — Earlier Community figurative mark LIBERO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/09) — Partial refusal of registration — Application for annulment brought by the intervener — Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance — Signature of the response setting out grounds of appeal before the Board of Appeal — Admissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/46

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 June 2009 — LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH v OHIM — Dagmar Causley (LiBRO)
   (Case T-418/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark LiBRO - Earlier Community figurative mark LIBERO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/09) - Partial refusal of registration - Application for annulment brought by the intervener - Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance - Signature of the response setting out grounds of appeal before the Board of Appeal - Admissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal)
   2009/C 180/84
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Guntramsdorf, Austria) (represented by: G. Prantl, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Dagmar Causley (Pleidelsheim, Germany) (represented by: W. Günther, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2007 (Case R 1454/2005-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Dagmar Causley and LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Dismisses the application of Dagmar Causley;

               3.

               Orders LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH to pay the costs, with the exception of those of Dagmar Causley;

               4.

               Orders Dagmar Causley to bear her own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 8, 12.01.2008.


21.10.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 302/21
2.    If not, is the manner in which these provisions are                sation — United Civil Chambers) of 9 June 2000, which was
      interpreted and applied in practice by the Conseil Supé-           received at the Court Registry on 11 September 2000, for a
      rieur de l’Audiovisuel contrary to Article 59 of the EC            preliminary ruling in the case of Fonderie Officine Meecaniche
      Treaty (now Article 49 EC) insofar as they prevent or              Tacconi SpA against HWS Heinrich Wagner Sinto Maschinen-
      restrict (a) the advertising of alcoholic drinks at sporting       fabrik GmbH on the following question:
      events taking place in Member States other than France
      when the events are to be televised in France and (b) the
      broadcasting in France of sporting events taking place in          Does an action against a defendant for pre-contractual liability
      other Member States at which there is advertising of               fall within the scope of matters relating to delict or quasi-delict
      alcoholic beverages?                                               (Article 5(3)? If not, does it fall within the scope of matters
                                                                         relating to a contract (Article 5(1) (1)? If it does, what is ‘the
                                                                         obligation in question’? Otherwise, is the general criterion of
                                                                         ‘domicile of the defendant’ the only criterion applicable?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                   (1) Article 5(1) and (3) of the Brussels Convention 1968 on Jurisdic-
                                                                             tion and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of
                                                                             Matters (consolidated version) (OJ 1998 C 27, p. 1).
23 August 2000 in the appeal concerning Merkurbau-
Grundstücksverwertungs GmbH & Co KG, Manfred
Wander, Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg
and Grundverkehrslandeskommission des Landes Salz-
                                burg
                         (Case C-319/00)
                         (2000/C 302/40)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-525/99 (1)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-                                          (2000/C 302/42)
tungssenat Salzburg of 23 August 2000, received at the Court
Registry on 28 August 2000, for a preliminary ruling in
the appeal concerning Merkurbau-Grundstücksverwertungs                   By order of 3 April 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
GmbH & Co KG, Manfred Wander, Grundverkehrsbeauftragter                  of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
des Landes Salzburg and Grundverkehrslandeskommission des                the register of Case C-525/99 (Reference for a preliminary
Landes Salzburg on the following question:                               ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg):
                                                                         Neubau GmbH and Herbert Bogensberger.
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12 to
14 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land                  (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
Transfer law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.
No. 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply
with a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
case?
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-38/00 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/43)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema
di Cassazione — Sezione Unite Civile by order of that                    By order of 10 May 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
court of 9 June 2000 in the case of Fonderie Officine                    of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Meccaniche Tacconi SpA against HWS Heinrich Wagner                       the register of Case C-38/00 (Reference for a preliminary
                  Sinto Maschinenfabrik GmbH                             ruling from the Deputy Traffic Commissioner, North Western
                                                                         Traffic Area): Public enquiry concerning Aaron Theophilus
                         (Case C-334/00)                                 Joseph, trading under the name of Woodcroft Haulage.
                         (2000/C 302/41)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di
Cassazione — Sezione Unite Civile (Supreme Court of Cas-


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 15 May 1997 in Case C-405/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München): Bioforce GmbH v. Oberfinanzdirektion München (Common customs tariff - Heading 3004 - Echinacea - Medicament)

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 199/9
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  M. Stein, Bayerische Landesbank International SA, 7-9
                        (Fourth Chamber)                              Boulevard Royal — appeal against the judgment of the
                                                                      Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                         of 15 May 1997                               (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 13 September
in Case C-278/95 P: Siemens SA v. Commission of the                   1995 in Joined Cases T-244/93 and T-486/93 TWD v.
                   European Communities ( ')                          Commission [ 1995 ] ECR 11-2265 , seeking to have that
                                                                      judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
  (Appeal — State aid — General aid — Definition of aid)              being one Commission of the European Communities
                           ( 97/C 199/ 15                             (Agents: Paul F. Nemitz and Anders Jessen ) — the Court,
                                                                      composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F.
                                                                      Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray and
                 (Language of the case: French)                       L. Sevón, Presidents of Chambers, C. N. . Kakouris,
                                                                      P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, P. Jann ( Rapporteur),
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; G.Tesauro,
          published in the European Court Reports)                    Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                      judgment on 15 May 1997, in which it:
In Case C-278/95 P: Siemens SA ( represented by Michel
Waelbroeck, Jules Stuyck and Olivier Speltdoorn) —                    I. dismisses the appeal;
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities ( Second Chamber ) of 8 June              2 . orders the appellant to pay the costs.
1995 in Case T-459/93 Siemens v. Commission [ 1995]
ECR 11-1675 , seeking to have that judgment set aside, the            (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
European Communities (Agents : Jean-Paul Keppenne and,
subsequently, Gerard Rozet) — the Court ( Fourth
Chamber ), composed of: J. L. Murray, President of the
Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn, H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ),
Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein,                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                                (First Chamber)
on 15 May 1997, in which it:
                                                                                of 15 May 1997
1 . dismisses the appeal;                                             in Case C-405/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                      from ' the Finanzgericht München ): Bioforce GmbH v.
2 . orders Siemens to pay the costs.                                                Oberfinanzdirektion München (')
                                                                      (Common customs tariff — Heading 3004 — Echinacea
(') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .                                                              — Medicament)
                                                                                97/C 199/ 17
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                         of 15 May 1997
in Case C-3 55/95 P: Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH                      In Case C-405/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
  (TWD ) v. Commission of the European Communities ( ] )              of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht München
                                                                      ( Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
(State aid — Commission decisions suspending payment of
                                                                      pending before that court between Bioforce GmbH and
   certain aids until previous unlawful aid has been repaid)
                                                                      Oberfinanzdirektion München — on the interpretation of
                             97/C 199/16 )                            headings 3004 and 2208 of Annex I to Commission
                                                                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2551 /93 of 10 August 1993
                (Language of the case: German)                        amending Annex I to Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2658/
                                                                      87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the
                                                                      Common Customs Tariff ( OJ No L 241 , 27. 9 . 1993 , p. 1 ),
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        on the classification of echinacea extract drops — the
          published in the European Court Reports)                    Court ( First Chamber ), composed of: L. Sevón, President
                                                                      of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and M. Wathelet
In Case C-3 55/95 P: Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH                      ( Rapporteur ), Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General;
(TWD ), a company incorporated under German law,                      H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment
established in Deggendorf ( Germany ), represented by                 on 15 May 1997, in which it has ruled :
Walter Forstner, Lutz Radtke and Karl-Heinz Schupp,
Rechtsanwälte, Deggendorf, assisted by Michael                        The Common Customs Tariff, in the version established in
Schweitzer, Professor at the University of Passau, with an            Annex 1 to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2551 /93 of
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                    1 0 August 1 993 amending Annex I to Council Regulation
 ---pagebreak--- No C 199/ 10           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                         28 . 6 . 97
(EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff must                    Tributaria Provinciale di Milano — Sezione XII — by
be interpreted as meaning that Echinacea purpurea                     order of that court of 24 March 1997 in the case of AGAS
extract-based drops must be classified under heading                  (Abbruzzi       Gas    Agas )      SpA   against Amministrazione
3004 .                                                                                Tributaria
                                                                                ( Case C-152/97 )
(') OJ No C 46, 17. 2 . 1996 .                                                                     ( 97/C 199/ 19 )
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by order of the Commissione
                                                                      Tributaria Provinciale di Milano ( Provincial Tax Court,
                                                                      Milan ) — Sezione XII (Twelfth Chamber ) — of 24 March
Action brought on 16 April 1997 by the Commission of                  1997, received at the Court Registry on 21 April 1997, for
  the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic              a preliminary ruling in the case of AGAS ( Abbruzzi Gas
                          Case C-146/97                               Agas ) SpA against Amministrazione Tributaria on the
                                                                      following question :
                          ( 97/C 199/ 18 )
                                                                      Do the provisions on the harmonization of indirect taxes
                                                                      on contributions of capital to capital companies ( ! ) in the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                   Union also include merger by acquisition of one company
before the Court of Justice on 16 April 1997 by the                   by another company which already owns 100% of the
Commission of the European Communities, represented                   capital of the former ?
by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos             (') Article 4 of Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 ( OJ No
Gomez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal                          L 249 , 3 . 10 . 1969 , p. 5 ), amended by Directives 73/80/EEC
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                        of 9 April 1973 ( OJ No L 103 , 18 . 4 . 1973 , p. 15 ) and 85/
                                                                          303/EEC of 10 June 1985 ( OJ No L 156 , 15 . 6 . 1985 , p. 23 ).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the period
     prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
     provisions necessary to comply with Commission                   Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen by order of that court
     Directive 93/70/EEC of 28 July 1993 establishing                 of 16 April 1997 in the application for review of
     Community analysis methods for official control of               legislative provisions brought by Georg Badeck and
     feedingstuffs ('), the Hellenic Republic has failed to           other members and former members of the Hessischer
     fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and that              Landtag, interveners: Hessischer Ministerprasident and
     Directive ,                                                        Landesanwalt beim Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen
                                                                                Case C-158/97 )
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .                                                    ( 97/C 199/20 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the
                                                                      Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen ( State Constitutional
Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty                Court, Hessen ) of 16 April 1997, which was received at
establishing the European Community, a directive is to be             the Court Registry on 24 April 1997, for a preliminary
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                   ruling in the application for review of legislative
Member State to which it is addressed . Under the first               provisions brought by Georg Badeck and other
paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty, the Member States               members        and    former        members    of  the   Hessischer
are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or              Landtag, interveners : Hessischer Ministerprasident and
particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising           Landesanwalt beim Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen,
out of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the               on the following question :
institutions of the Community. The Hellenic Republic has
not yet taken the appropriate measures to transpose the               Does Article 2 ( 1 ) and (4 ) of Council Directive 76/207/
Directive in question fully into the Greek legal system.              EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the
                                                                      principle of equal treatment for men and women as
 (*) OJ Nd L 234, 17. 9 . 1993 , p . 17 .                             regards access to employment, vocational training and
                                                                      promotion, and working conditions ( OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 .
                                                                       1976, p. 40, hereinafter 'the Equal Treatment Directive')
                                                                      preclude national rules under which :


title: Case C-112/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 February 2016 — Persidera SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 February 2016 — Persidera SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti
   (Case C-112/16)
   (2016/C 175/11)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Persidera SpA

      Respondents: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does EU law, in particular Articles 56, 101, 102 and 106 TFEU, Article 9 of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) (‘the Framework Directive’), Articles 3, 5 and 7 of Directive 2002/20/EC (2) (‘the Authorisation Directive’) and Articles 2 and 4 of Directive 2002/77/EC (3) (‘the Competition Directive’) and the principles of non-discrimination, transparency, freedom of competition, proportionality, effectiveness and pluralism of information preclude a provision of national law which, for the purposes of determining the number of digital networks to be allocated to operators for the conversion of analogue networks, provides that equal account should be taken of analogue networks operated entirely lawfully and analogue networks that operated in the past in breach of the anti-concentration thresholds laid down by rules of national law and have been the subject of adverse criticism by the Court of Justice or the European Commission or, in any event, operated without being granted the necessary right?

               2.

               Does EU law, in particular Articles 56, 101, 102 and 106 TFEU, Article 9 of Directive 2002/21/EC (‘the Framework Directive’), Articles 3, 5 and 7 of Directive 2002/20/EC (‘the Authorisation Directive’) and Articles 2 and 4 of Directive 2002/77/EC (‘the Competition Directive’) and the principles of non-discrimination, transparency, freedom of competition, proportionality, effectiveness and pluralism of information preclude a provision of national law which, for the purposes of determining the number of digital networks to be allocated to operators for the conversion of analogue networks takes account of all the analogue networks operated until that point, including those operated in breach of the anti-concentration thresholds laid down by rules of national law that have already been the subject of adverse criticism by the Court of Justice or the European Commission or, in any event, those operated without being granted the necessary rights, and which has the actual effect of reducing the number of digital networks allocated to a multi-network operator, by comparison with those operated under the analogue system, to an extent which is proportionally greater than the reduction imposed on competitors?

      (1)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).

      (2)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21).

      (3)  Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2002 L 249, p. 21).


title: Case T-24/11: Action brought on 19 January 2011 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/23

         Action brought on 19 January 2011 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council
   (Case T-24/11)
   2011/C 80/44
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Refah Kargaran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Decision 2010/644/CSFP of 26 October 2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               Declare that Decision 2010/413/CSFP does not apply to the applicant;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and principal arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-4/11 Export Development Bank of Iran v Council.


title: Case F-30/07: Action brought on 28 March 2007 — Noworyta v Parliament

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/38

         Action brought on 28 March 2007 — Noworyta v Parliament
   (Case F-30/07)
   (2007/C 117/61)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Lidia Noworyta (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 28 April 2006 rejecting the proposal of the applicant's hierarchical superior of 20 October 2005 to grant her the fixed allowance in respect of overtime worked in special conditions within the meaning of Article 3 of Annex VI to the Staff Regulations or any other allowance, either under Article 56a of 56b of the Staff Regulations

               —

               an order that the defendant pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of her action, the applicant pleads first, the infringement of the general principle according to which any worker must have fair working conditions, in particular in terms of working time and compensation or allowances for overtime worked or on account of special arrangements in the organisation of his or her working hours.
   More specifically, she submits that, unlike Articles 56a and 56b of the Staff Regulations, Article 3 of Annex VI to the Staff Regulations does not make the granting of a fixed allowance in respect of overtime worked in special conditions subject to the condition that that overtime must be worked on a regular basis. In the applicant's view, the Appointing Authority erred in law by inserting that condition into the internal rules adopted on compensation for overtime.
   The Appointing Authority also erred in law by stating that officials recruited as of 1 May 2004 are not entitled to such an allowance, even though that possibility was expressly referred to in Article 1 of the internal rules.
   In addition, the applicant claims that the decision to deny her any compensation or allowance in respect of her special conditions of work infringes Article 56a and 56b of the Staff Regulations and the principle of equal treatment.
   Lastly, in the applicant's opinion, the Parliament's position is inconsistent, since the Director General of the Directorate General for the Presidency stated that nobody on a telephone switchboard works overtime on a regular basis, while the Appointing Authority for its part claimed that a study was underway in order to examine the possibilities of harmonising working conditions in the department at issue precisely because of the atypical hours worked, which are outside of general/normal working hours.