25 . 3 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 74/9
application of a progressive weighting, not based on any                    Removal from the register of Case C-148/94 (*)
objective criterion, which is greater and increases more                                        ( 95/C 74/15 )
rapidly for the four tax bands from 19 CV (fiscal
horsepower) opwards, which apply only to cars imported
from other Member States, than for the tax bands from 12
to 14 CV, which cover three tax ratings, and the four tax           By order of 12 January 1995 the President pf the Court of
bands from 15 to 18 CV, in which its rate of progression is         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
constant and which apply to French-made cars capable of             from the register of Case C-148/94: Commission of the
being considered similar to imported products of over               European Communities v. Ireland.
19 CV ?
                                                                    f 1 ) OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            2 . the remainder of the application, in so far as it is based
                       ( Second Chamber)                                   on Article 1 75 of the Treaty, is dismissed;
                      of 24 January 1995
                                                                    3 . it is not necessary to rule on the application under
in Case T-74/92: Ladbroke Racing (Deutschland ) GmbH v.                    Article 173 of the Treaty in so far as it concerns
        Commission of the European Communities i 1 )                       Article 86 of the Treaty;
 (Competition — Action for failure to act and annulment —
Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty — Investigation of the
                                                                    4 . in so far as the application for annulment concerns
                            complaint)
                                                                           Article 85 of the Treaty it is dismissed as
                            95/C 74/16                                     inadmissible;
                (Language of the case: English)                     5 . the application seeking to have the Court issue
                                                                           directions   to   the    Commission   is  dismissed  as
                                                                           inadmissible;
In Case T-74/92 : Ladbroke Racing ( Deutschland) GmbH,
whose registered office is in Mainz (Germany), represented
by Jeremy Lever QC and Christopher Vajda, Barrister,                6 . the Commission shall pay its own costs and
members of the Bar of England and Wales, and by Stephen                    three-quarters of those of the applicant;
Kon, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Winandy and Err, 60 Avenue Gaston                   7. the intervener shall pay its own costs.
Diderich v. Commission of the European Communities
 (Agents : J. Currall and F. E. Gonzalez-Diaz), supported by
Deutscher Sportverlag Kurt Stoof GmbH & Co.,                        (!) OJ No C 294, 10 . 11 . 1992 .
represented by Klaus-Jiirgen Michaeli and Ute Zinsmeister,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn and Schmitt, 62
Avenue Guillaume — application under the third paragraph
of Article 175 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that the
Commission failed to define its position on the applicant's          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
complaint based on Articles 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty
 (IV/33.375 — Ladbroke GmbH/PMU-PMI-DSV), and                                              of 24 January 1995
alternatively under Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for the           in Case T-114/92: Bureau Européen des Médias de
annulment of the Commission's implicit decision to reject           l'Industrie Musicale (BEMIM) v. Commission of the
the complaint — the Court of First Instance ( Second                                    European Communities ( ! )
 Chamber), composed of: J. L. Cruz Vila^a, President, C. P.          (Competition — Copyright — Regulation (EEC) No 17 —
Briet, A. Kalogeropoulos, D. P. M. Barrington and J.                Rejection of a complaint — Obligations concerning the
Biancarelli, Judges, H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment             investigation of complaints — Community interest)
on 24 January 1995 , in which it declares that:
                                                                                95/C 74/17 )
 1 . in breach of the EEC Treaty the Commission has failed
     to define its position on the applicant's complaint (No                          (Language of the case: French)
     IV/33.375 — Ladbroke GmbH/PMU-PMI-DSV) in so
     far as the latter was based on Article 86 of the               In Case T-114/92: Bureau Européen des Médias de
     Treaty;                                                        l'Industrie Musicale ( BEMIM ), established in Paris,


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Linz by order of that court of 15 April 1998 in the case of Volker Graf against Filzmoser Maschinenbau GmbH (Case C-190/98)

text:
25.7.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 234/15
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from, the Corte dei
                                                                    Conti Ð Chamber responsible for verifying acts of the
                                                                    Government and of State Administrations Ð by order of
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force           20 March and 7 April 1998 in proceedings involving the
    or, in the alternative, to communicate, within the              Ministry of Public Works, the Ministry of Finance, the
    prescribed period the laws, regulations and                     Budget and Economic Planning, and ANAS Ð Azienda
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with              Nazionale Autonoma delle Strade (now Ente Nazionale
    Council Directive 92/101/EEC (1) of 23 November                                           per le Strade)
    1992 amending Directive 77/91/EEC (2) on the
                                                                                (Case C-192/98)
    formation of public limited-liability companies and the
    maintenance and alteration of their capital, the Grand                                   (98/C 234/29)
    Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
    obligations under Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty;          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    and                                                             European Communities by an order of the Corte dei Conti
                                                                    (Italian Court of Auditors) Ð Chamber responsible for
                                                                    verifying acts of the Government and of State
2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.                            Administrations Ð of 20 March and 7 April 1998, which
                                                                    was received at the Court Registry on 19 May 1998, for a
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 preliminary ruling in proceedings involving the Ministry of
                                                                    Public Works, the Ministry of Finance, the Budget and
                                                                    Economic Planning, and ANAS (Azienda Nazionale
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                 Autonoma delle Strade Ð Autonomous National
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of                 Highways Agency) (now Ente Nazionale per le Strade), on
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                the following questions:
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives
addressed to them into their domestic law before the                1. Whether the particular features of Council Directive
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. That period                92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992 relating to the
expired on 1 January 1994 without the Grand Duchy of                     coordination of procedures for the award of public
Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary                       service contracts Ð which, as is known, provides for a
provisions.                                                              transitional period for its full application (21st recital
                                                                         in its preamble), for the utilization of two series of
                                                                         provisions, depending on whether the services
(1) OJ L 347 of 28.11.1991, p. 64.
                                                                         concerned are those listed in Annex IA or in Annex IB
(2) OJ L 26 of 30.1.1977, p. 1.
                                                                         (Articles 8 and 9), and for a procedure for review
                                                                         (within three years) of the results achieved, with a
                                                                         view to making the Directive fully applicable to a
                                                                         wider range of service contracts' (27th recital and
                                                                         Article 43) Ð are such as to preclude or render more
                                                                         difficult its immediate applicability in domestic law (as
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandes-                    from 1 July 1993) in the absence of a formal measure
gericht Linz by order of that court of 15 April 1998 in the              adopted by the Member State to transpose it;
case of Volker Graf against Filzmoser Maschinenbau
                             GmbH                                   2. Whether or not Ð if the first question is answered in
                                                                         the negative Ð the provisions of the abovementioned
                       (Case C-190/98)                                   directive (services covered by Article 8) are applicable
                        (98/C 234/28)                                    to the ANAS (Azienda Nazionale Autonoma delle
                                                                         Strade Ð Autonomous National Highways Agency) as
                                                                         regards the fulfilment or otherwise of the requirements
                                                                         of Community law for it to be regarded as a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         contracting authority' within the meaning of
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
                                                                         Article 1(b) of the abovementioned directive;
Linz (Higher Regional Court, Linz) of 15 April 1998,
received at the Court Registry on 19 April 1998, for a
                                                                    3. Whether, if the foregoing question is answered in the
preliminary ruling in the case of Volker Graf against
                                                                         affirmative, the application of Directive 92/50/EEC Ð
Filzmoser Maschinenbau GmbH on the following
                                                                         which does not appear to be a matter of any doubt
question:
                                                                         regarding the loan agreement concluded with the
                                                                         group of Italian banks to raise the fourth and last
Does Article 48 of the EC Treaty preclude national                       tranche of the LIT 8 000 billion loan authorised by
provisions under which an employee who is a national of                  Law No 405/90 Ð must be recognised also with
a Member State is not entitled to compensation on                        respect to the agreement between ANAS and Nomura
termination of his employment relationship simply because                International Plc raising LIT 2 000 billion (third
he himself gave notice terminating that relationship in                  tranche) by means of a bond loan based on the issue
order to take up employment in another Member State?                     of variable-rate Eurobonds denominated in US dollars,
                                                                         having regard to the fact that the 13th recital in the
                                                                         preamble and Article 2(a)(viii) [sic] (2) of the
                                                                         abovementioned directive exclude from bank services


title: Case T-36/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — API v Commission (Access to documents — Pleadings lodged by the Commission in proceedings before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance — Decision refusing access)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — API v Commission
   (Case T-36/04) (1)

   (Access to documents - Pleadings lodged by the Commission in proceedings before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance - Decision refusing access)
   (2007/C 247/37)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Association de la presse internationale a.s.b.l. (API) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Völcker, F. Louis and J. Heithecker, avocats)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Docksey and P. Aalto, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for the annulment of the Commission's decision of 20 November 2003 rejecting an application by the applicant for access to the pleadings lodged by the Commission in proceedings before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission's decision of 20 November 2003 in so far as it refused access to the pleadings submitted by the Commission before the Court of Justice in Case C-466/98 Commission v United Kingdom; Case C-467/98 Commission v Denmark; Case C-468/98 Commission v Sweden; Case C-469/98 Commission v Finland; Case C-471/98 Commission v Belgium; Case C-472/98 Commission v Luxembourg; Case C-475/98 Commission v Austria and Case C-476/98 Commission v Germany and before the Court of First Instance in Case T-342/99 Airtours v Commission;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 20.3.2004.


title: Case T-483/07: Action brought on 22 December 2007 — Romania v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/56

         Action brought on 22 December 2007 — Romania v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-483/07)
   (2008/C 51/102)
   Language of the case: Romanian
   Parties

      Applicant: Romania (represented by: Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea, Agent, Emilia Gane and Dumitra Mereuță, Advisers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision (C(2007) 5240 final) of 26 October 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission certificates for the year 2007, notified by Romania pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision, the Commission rejected in part the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission certificates for the year 2007, notified by Romania pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC (1), reducing by 9,080765 million tonnes of CO2, equivalent per year the overall number of certificates that will be allocated for the Community scheme and establishing that the average overall annual volume covered by the emission quotas that may be allocated will not exceed 74,836235 million tonnes.
   In support of its action, the applicant submits as follows:

               —

               the Commission has failed to comply with Article 9(1) and (3) and Article 11(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC, in that it has established, with binding force, on the basis of a method of its own, the overall volume of the emission quotas that can be allocated by Romania, thus encroaching upon the latter's sphere of competence;

               —

               the Commission has applied a method wholly lacking in transparency for the purposes of determining the overall volumes of the emission quotas, thus infringing not only Article 9(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC, but also Article 9(3) thereof;

               —

               in applying its own method, the Commission has infringed the principle of non-discrimination;

               —

               the Commission has failed to comply with Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC and Article 253 EC, in that it has failed to give adequate reasons for decision C(2007) 5240 final.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).


title: Case C-348/01: Action brought on 17 September 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 331/10                 EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.11.2001
Action brought on 17 September 2001 by the Com-                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
mission of the European Communities against the French                21 September 2001 by the Italian Republic, represented by
                                Republic                              Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by Gianni De Bellis,
                                                                      Avvocato dello Stato.
                           (Case C-348/01)
                           (2001/C 331/15)                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      —     annul Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC)
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                No 1263/2001 of 27 June 2001 fixing the derived
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 Septem-                  intervention prices for white sugar for the 2001/02
ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities                      marketing year (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 60), in so far as it fails
represented by G. zur Hausen and J. Adda, acting as Agents,                 to fix derived intervention prices for white sugar for all
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                  the areas of Italy and, in so far as necessary, annul also
                                                                            Article 2(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001
                                                                            of 19 June 2001,
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                      —     order the Commission of the European Communities and
1.    Declare that by not yet having adopted all the laws,                  the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary in
      order to comply with Council Directive 97/11/EC of
      3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the
      assessment of the effects of certain public and private
      projects on the environment (1) or at least by not having       Pleas in law and main arguments
      informed the Commission fully thereof, the French
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      Directive.
                                                                      The Italian Government claims that the Commission, in
2.    Order the French Republic to pay the costs.                     determining the internal consumption of sugar to be balanced
                                                                      against production in order to ascertain whether or not there
                                                                      is a deficit, used an unlawful and erroneous determinative
                                                                      criterion.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in          In particular, when forecasting consumption, it did not
Case C-345/01 (2); the deadline for transposition expired on          include sugar used for the preparation of sugar-based products
14 March 1999.                                                        intended for export.
(1) OJ L 73 of 14.3.1997, p. 5.
(2) See p. 8 of this Official Journal.                                Italy will therefore find itself having to import white sugar in
                                                                      the 2001/02 marketing year, like any other country in a
                                                                      situation which is hypothetically similar save for the fact that
                                                                      it consumes internally all sugar-based products, whereas Italy
                                                                      instead exports them.
Action brought on 21 September 2001 by the Italian                    According to the Commission’s criterion, such other country
Republic against Commission of the European Communi-                  would be considered in deficit, whereas Italy would not,
           ties and Council of the European Union                     despite the fact that both countries have the same sugar import
                                                                      requirement.
                           (Case C-360/01)
                           (2001/C 331/16)                            Such a result is unfair and runs counter to the scope and
                                                                      purpose of ‘regionalisation’.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties and the Council of the European Union was brought


title: Case T-193/12: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015  — MIP Metro v OHIM — Holsten Brauerei (H) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark H — Earlier national figurative mark H — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Failure to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Holsten Brauerei (H)
   (Case T-193/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark H - Earlier national figurative mark H - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Failure to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 081/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Holsten-Brauerei AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: N. Hebeis and R. Douglas, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2012 (Case R 2340/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Holsten-Brauerei AG and MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.


title: Case T-241/05: Action brought on 29 June 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/35

         Action brought on 29 June 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-241/05)
   (2005/C 205/62)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 29 June 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company, established in Cincinnati, Ohio (USA), represented by G. Kuipers, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 14 April 2005 in Case R 843/2004-1 in so far as it finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94;

               —

               order the OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Community trade mark concerned:

               The three dimensional mark consisting of a square white tablet showing a lilac six petalled floral design for goods in class 3 (Washing and bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; preparations for the washing cleaning and care of dishes; soaps;...) — application No 1 683 523

               Decision of the examiner:

               Refusal of the application

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94


title: Case C-145/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  27 April 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium)) — Levi Strauss & Co. v Casucci SpA (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(1)(b) — Relevant time for assessing likelihood of confusion between a trade mark and a similar sign — Loss of distinctive character owing to conduct of the proprietor of the trade mark after use of the sign has commenced)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/19

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium)) — Levi Strauss & Co. v Casucci SpA
   (Case C-145/05) (1)

   (Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 5(1)(b) - Relevant time for assessing likelihood of confusion between a trade mark and a similar sign - Loss of distinctive character owing to conduct of the proprietor of the trade mark after use of the sign has commenced)
   (2006/C 143/34)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour de cassation (Belgium)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Levi Strauss & Co.

      Defendant: Casucci SpA
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 5(1) of Directive 89/104/EEC: First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Relevant time for appreciation of the likelihood of confusion between a trade mark and a similar sign — Loss of distinctiveness as a result of the trade mark owner's conduct after use of the sign began
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 5(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine the scope of protection of a trade mark which has been lawfully acquired on the basis of its distinctive character, the national court must take into account the perception of the public concerned at the time when the sign, the use of which infringes that trade mark, began to be used.

               2.

               Where the competent national court finds that the sign in question constituted an infringement of the mark at the time when the sign began to be used, it is for that court to take such measures as prove to be the most appropriate in the light of the circumstances of the case in order to safeguard the proprietor's rights deriving from Article 5(1) of Directive 89/104; such measures may include, in particular, an order to cease use of that sign.

               3.

               It is not appropriate to order cessation of the use of the sign in question if it has been established that the trade mark has lost its distinctive character, in consequence of acts or inactivity of the proprietor, so that it has become a common name within the meaning of Article 12(2) of Directive 89/104, and the trade mark has therefore been revoked.

      (1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.


C 289/20              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 13.10.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-132/00 (1)               ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)): Kraft Jacobs
                                                                    Suchard Österreich GmbH v Eduard Mitsche and Others.
                       (2001/C 289/44)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
By order of 10 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-132/00: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-382/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/48)
                                                                    By order of 27 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                    of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
       Removal from the register of Case C-191/00 (1)               the register of Case C-382/00: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                    ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Pontevedra):
                                                                    Gardenia Abal Pombo v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad
                       (2001/C 289/45)                              Social and Tesoreria General de la Seguridad Social.
By order of 8 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice       (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-191/00: Commission of the European
Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-397/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/49)
                                                                    By order of 11 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
       Removal from the register of Case C-306/00 (1)               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-397/00: Commission of the European
                       (2001/C 289/46)                              Communities v Hellenic Republic.
By order of 30 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice       (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-306/00: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-401/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/50)
                                                                    By order of 13 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
       Removal from the register of Case C-314/00 (1)               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-401/00: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                       (2001/C 289/47)
By order of 12 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice      (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-314/00: (reference for a preliminary


title: Case C-282/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Werner Ansorge v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/38

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Werner Ansorge v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-282/17)
   (2017/C 239/48)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Werner Ansorge

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               3.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?

               4.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case T-377/07: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Supply of IT services relating to content interoperability technologies for European eGovernment services — Rejection of a tender — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Misuse of powers — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-377/07) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply of IT services relating to content interoperability technologies for European eGovernment services - Rejection of a tender - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Misuse of powers - Non-contractual liability)
   2012/C 32/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, Agent, and by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for (i) annulment of the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2007 not to accept the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki in the context of the call for tenders relating to ‘Content interoperability for European eGovernment Services’ (OJ 2006 S 128) and also of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and (ii) damages

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.


title: Case F-104/11: Action brought on 11 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/68

      Action brought on 11 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission
      (Case F-104/11)
      (2012/C 25/130)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Parties

         Applicant: ZZ (represented by: P. Homoki, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      Annulment of EPSO decision to reopen the procedure for open competition EPSO/AD/56/06 and the decision of the selection board relating to the results of competition EPSO/AD/56/06 — Administrator grade A5 with Hungarian citizenship and payment of compensation.

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  annul the decision of EPSO of 15 January 2011 relating to the reopening of the competition in respect of the applicant;

                  —

                  annul the decision of the EPSO selection board of 14 July 2011 relating to the results of competition EPSO/AD/56/06 — Administrator grade A5 with Hungarian citizenship;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay fair compensation for the loss caused to the applicant by the measure annulled through the grant of monetary compensation;

                  —

                  in the alternative, order the defendant to establish a dialogue with the applicant with a view to attempting to reach an agreement offering the applicant fair compensation;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 18 October 1996 by Bernard Connolly against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-163/96)

text:
No C 370/ 18           I EN 1              Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7 . 12 . 96
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Action brought on 18 October 1996 by Bernard Connolly
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                Case T-163/96 )
The applicant, Deputy Head of Division B/4 ( Common
Customs Tariff) of DG XXI, states that, by a memorandum                                        ( 96/C 370/38 )
of 29 October 1992, his immediate superior asked him to
take on , forthwith and until further notice, the duties of
Head of Division B/4, because he had to spend all of                                   (Language of the case: French)
his own time on the workload inherent in his duties as
head of SAMCOMM ( Sanctions Assistance Missions
Communication Centre ). Since 29 October 1992, the                    An action aganst the Commission of the European
applicant has therefore been performing the duties of Head            Communities was brought before the Court of First
of Division, as recorded in the two staff reports drawn up            Instance of the European Communities on 18 October 1996
since that date .                                                     by Bernard Connolly, resident at Everberg ( Belgium ),
                                                                      represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre-Paul Van
                                                                      Gehuchten, both of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
On 18 October 1995 , the applicant requested the                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
Commission to appoint him formally as temporary Head of               Rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
Division and to grant him the differential allowance
provided for by Article 7 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations . That
request was rejected. In response to the complaint lodged             The applicant claims that the Court should :
by. the applicant against that rejection, the Commission
gave him the temporary posting, but only from 1 August                — annul the suspension decision of 27 September 1995 ,
1996 .
                                                                      — annul the opinion of the Disciplinary Board of
The applicant's main plea contesting that decision is that                 7 December 1995 ,
Article 7 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations was infringed . He
contends      that all    the material  conditions  under that
provision for the grant of a temporary posting were met               — annul the appointing authority's decision of 16 January
from 29 October 1992 since, first, it has never been                       1996 , imposing on him the sanction of removal from
disputed that there continued to be an A 3 post in                         post, without reduction or withdrawal of pension
Division XXI/B/4 after the Head of Division had been                       rights,
assigned to SAMCOMM and, secondly, it is from that date
that the applicant was called upon by the appointing
authority, in this case his immediate superior, to take on a          — set aside the express rejection on 12 July 1996 of his
temporary posting. He claims, therefore, that the temporary                preliminary appeal of 7 March 1996 against the
posting should have taken effect on 29 October 1992 and                    opinion of the Disciplinary Board and the appointing
that he should have been paid the differential allowance                   authority's decision, referred to above,
from 30 January 1993 .
                                                                      — allow his claim for compensation by ordering the
Should the view be taken that the memorandum from his                      Commission to pay him Bfrs 7 500 000 , subject to
immediate superior cannot be regarded as a decision of the                 upward or downward adjustment in the course of the
appointing authority calling upon him to take on a                         proceedings, in respect of material damage, and Bfrs
temporary posting, the applicant claims in the alternative                 1 500 000 , subject as above, in respect of non-material
that the failure to assign him temporarily to the post of                  damage, in compensation for the loss and damage he
Head       of   Division    XXI/B/4  from  29   October    1992            has suffered by reason of the alleged irregular and
constitutes an infringement of Article 7 ( 2 ) of the Staff                unlawful conduct,
Regulations . Since all the requisite material conditions were
 satisfied, the Commission committed a manifest error in its
assessment of the circumstances of the case and breached its          — order the Commission to pay the costs.
 duty to have regard for his interests by failing to take the
necessary decision .                                                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant points out, finally, that the Commission                Mr Connolly, who, in disciplinary proceedings brought
 should have seconded the Head of Division XXI/B/4 to
                                                                       against him for publishing a book without prior
 SAMCOMM, inasmuch as he manifestly satisfied the                      authorization , has already challenged the decisions taken to
 conditions for a secondment in the interests of the service
                                                                       suspend him under Article 88 of the Staff Regulations and
 within the meaning of the first indent of subparagraph ( a )          to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Board ( ] ), and has
 of the first paragraph of Article 37 of the Staff Regulations         also sought the annulment of the Board's opinion ( 2 ), asks
 ( official directed to serve temporarily in a post outside his        the Court, in the present case, to annul the Commission's
 institution ).                                                        decision of 16 January 1996 imposing on him the
                                                                       disciplinary sanction of removal from post without loss of
                                                                       pension rights .
 ---pagebreak--- 7 . 12 . 96             EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 370/ 19
1 . He alleges, first, infringement of the disciplinary                    second paragraph of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations
     procedure and of essential procedural requirements .                  infringes Article 10 (2 ) of the Convention on Human
                                                                           Rights, since it leads to a fundamental prohibition of
     He maintains that the contested decision was taken in                 publication which goes beyond the limitations
     breach of Articles 87 and 88 of the Staff Regulations                 envisaged by the latter provision.
     and of the general principles concerning policy in
     disciplinary matters, in that it was based on a fault —          3 . Finally, Mr Connolly alleges misuse of powers,
     an alleged conflict between the substance of his work                 maintaining that there is precise and consistent evidence
     and Commission policy — which was not raised in the                   to show that, in this case, the decision to remove him
     report of the authority which referred the matter to the              from his post was taken before any assessment of the
     Disciplinary Board.                                                   seriousness of the facts in the context of the disciplinary
                                                                           procedure .
     He also complains of a lack of reasoning in the
     Disciplinary Board's opinion and the appointing
     authority's decision and of infringement of Article 7 of         As regards his claim for compensation, Mr Connolly argues
     Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and of the rights of           that the irregularities of which he complains have caused
     the defence, in that neither the Board nor the                   him material and non-material damage. The material
     appointing authority took the trouble to deal with the           damage consists in his removal from his employment,
     pleas he raised in his defence .                                 resulting in the reduction and then the withdrawal of his
                                                                      remuneration; concomitantly, he has lost any chance of
     He also alleges infringement of the procedural                   obtaining the promotions which his qualifications and his
     provisions in Title VI of the Staff Regulations and              position warranted . The non-material damage consists,
     Articles 3 , 4, 5, 6 and 8 of Annex IX, in that: ( a ) both      first, in his being deprived of his legitimate expectation in
     the Disciplinary Board's opinion and the appointing              the pursuit of his career and, secondly, in the damage to his
     authority's decision were drawn up on the strength of            reputation and professional esteem by reason of the
     facts that were not the subject of a prior hearing; ( b ) no     accusations upheld against him, in respect of which he was
     report was made on the matter as a whole; (c ) the               not even asked to explain himself.
     decision was taken with the active participation of the
     chairman of the Board; and ( d ) the decision was taken          0 ) Case T-203/95 , OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p . 16 .
     without even a proper examination of his pleas in                (2 ) Case T-34/96, OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996, p. 32.
     defence .
2 . As regards the content of the contested decision, Mr
     Connolly argues, first, that both the Disciplinary Board
     and the appointing authority regarded his receipt of                         Removal from the register of T- 19/96 ( ! )
     royalties for the work in question as contrary to
     Article 1 1 of the Staff Regulations, on the basis of an                                     ( 96/C 370/39 )
     interpretation of that provision whereby any
     remuneration from sources outside the institution is                              (Language of the case: English)
     prohibited without the prior authorization of the
     appointing authority. He considers that that                     By order of 22 October 1996 the President of the Fourth
     interpretation is contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No 1         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
     of 20 March 1952 to the European Convention on                   Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
     Human Rights.                                                    Case T-19/96 : John Carvel and Guardian Newspapers Ltd
                                                                      v. Council of the European Union .
     He also considers that the interpretation given by the
     Disciplinary Board and the appointing authority to the           0 ) OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .


title: Case T-223/99: Action brought on 6 October 1999 by Luc Dejaiffe against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
8.1.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 6/25
The applicant states that the defendant is proceeding on the             Action brought on 6 October 1999 by Luc Dejaiffe against
basis of incorrect facts when it assumes that the applicant’s               the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
contract with Consultban was extended by seven years after
Regulation No 2362/98 entered into force.                                                        (Case T-223/99)
(1) OJ L 47 of 25.2.1993, p. 1.                                                                    (2000/C 6/47)
(2) OJ L 293 of 31.10.1998, p. 33.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 6 October 1999 by Luc Dejaiffe,
Action brought on 30 September 1999 by Joachim                           residing at Nivelles (Belgium), represented by Georges Vander-
           Behmer against the European Parliament                        sanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire
                        (Case T-220/99)                                  SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck.
                          (2000/C 6/46)                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — annul the decision taken by the appointing authority of
                   (Language of the case: French)                            the Office on 21 December 1998 unilaterally terminating
                                                                             the applicant’s employment contract;
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  — award the applicant, by way of compensation for the
on 30 September 1999 by Joachim Behmer, residing in                          material and non-material damage suffered by him, a sum,
Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise                  to be assessed on an equitable basis, amounting to
Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an                 EUR 10 000 and a sum equivalent to the prejudice caused
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire               to his career and to the diminution in his pension rights
Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.                                              and allowances;
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the European Parliament’s decision rejecting the                 Pleas in law and main arguments
     application by the applicant for the grade LA 3 post of
     Deputy Head of the German language Translation Division;
                                                                         The applicant contests the decision taken on 21 December
— annul the European Parliament’s decision appointing                    1998 by the President of the defendant organisation providing
     another person to that post;                                        for the early termination of the applicant’s contract of
                                                                         employment, pursuant to Article 5(b) of that contract and the
— order the Parliament to pay the costs.                                 provisions of Article 47(1)(b) of the Conditions of employment
                                                                         of other servants (‘the Conditions’), with effect from 15 Febru-
                                                                         ary 1999.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         According to the applicant’s account of the facts, that termin-
The applicant, a Grade LA 4 official, contests the appointing            ation constituted the appointing authority’s response to the
authority’s refusal to appoint him to the post of Deputy Head            way in which, at a meeting of a working group, he had hotly
of the German language Translation Division (career bracket:             contested the premature introduction of a software system,
LA 3).                                                                   pointing out certain technical deficiencies which would, in his
                                                                         view, have an adverse effect on the proper execution of
In support of his claims, he pleads infringement of:                     financial transactions and proposing technical steps to mitigate
                                                                         those deficiencies.
— Articles 7, 29 and 45 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                         In support of his claim, the applicant pleads infringement of
— the principle of equal treatment;                                      Article 26 of the Staff Regulations and of the right to a fair
                                                                         hearing, the commission in the present case of a manifest error
— the principle of career progression.                                   of assessment, the unlawful nature of his dismissal, violation
                                                                         of the right to freedom of expression and of the principle of
The applicant also pleads a manifest error of assessment in the          proportionality, and failure to observe the rules governing
present case, as well as failure by the defendant to comply with         disciplinary proceedings (infringement of Article 50a of the
its obligation to provide a statement of reasons.                        Conditions).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 11 July 1996 in Case C-303/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/157/EEC)

text:
No C 336/ 12            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9 . 11 . 96
updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June           Murray, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; Advocate
1983 ( 2 ), and Article 7 of Council Regulation ( EEC )               General : N. Fennelly; L. Hewlett, Administrator, acting as
No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for              Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 July 1996 , the operative
implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 , as amended               part of which is as follows :
and updated by Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 ( 3 ) — the
Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward ,                1 . Article 4 (1 ) or (2) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of
President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho                  2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds is to be
de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann and P. Jann , Judges,                  interpreted as meaning that a Member State is not
Advocate-General : D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: H.                     authorized to take account of the economic
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 July                   requirements mentioned in Article 2 thereof when
1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :                           designating a Special Protection Area and defining its
                                                                             boundaries.
Article 4 ( I ) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social               2 . Article 4 (1 ) or (2) of Directive 79/409/EEC is to be
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                       interpreted as meaning that a Member State may not,
persons and to members of their families moving within the                   when designating a Special Protection Area and defining
Community, as amended and updated by Council                                 is boundaries, take account ofeconomic requirements as
Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 june 1983 , must be                        constituting a general interest superior to that
interpreted as not applying to benefits which, like those                    represented by the ecological objective of that
provided for by the 1971 and 1988 guidelines on the                          directive.
granting of the adaptation allowance to employees in the
coal-mining industry, are granted by a Member State in the            3 . Article 4 (1 ) or (2) of Directive 79/409/EEC is to be
form of non-compulsory subsidies to workers from the time                    interpreted as meaning that a Member State may not,
at which they are laid off to the time at which they attain                  when designating a Special Protection Area and defining
retirement age.                                                              its boundaries, take account of economic requirements
                                                                             which may constitute imperative reasons of overriding
(') OJ No C 87, 8 . 4.1995 .                                                 public interest of the kind referred to in Article 6 (4) of
( 2 ) OJ No L 230, 1983 , p . 6 .                                            Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
(■') OJ No L 230, 1983 , p . 86 .                                            conservation of the natural habitats of wild fauna and
                                                                             flora.
                                                                      (') OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No L 103 , 1979 , p . 1 .
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 11 July 1996
in Case C-44/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
House of Lords ): Regina v. Secretary of State for the                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Environment ex parte : Royal Society for the Protection of                                       ( Fifth Chamber)
       Birds supported by Port of Sheerness Limited ( J )
                                                                                of 11 July 1996
 (Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds —
Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of the natural                in Case C-303/95 : Commission of the European Commu
habitats of wild fauna and flora — Delimitation of Special                                 nities v. Italian Republic (')
Protection Areas — Discretion enjoyed by the Member                        (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/157/EEC)
States — Economic and social considerations — Lappel                                               ( 96/C 336/22 )
                                Bank)
                           ( 96/C 336/21 )                                               (Language of the case: Italian)
                   (Language of the case: English)                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-44/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the House of Lords for a              In Case C-303/95 : Commission of the European
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that             Communities ( Agents: Laura Pignataro and Maria
court in the case of Regina v. Secretary of State for the             Kontou-Durande ) v. Italian Republic ( Agents : Umberto
Environment, ex parte: Royal Society for the Protection of            Leanza , assisted by Oscar Fiumara ) — application for a
 Birds supported by Port of Sheerness Limited, on the                 declaration by the Court that, by not adopting the laws,
 interpretation of Articles 2 and 4 of Council Directive              regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild               comply with Council Directive 91 / 157/EEC of 18 March
 birds ( 2 ), the Court composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,         1991 on batteries and accumulators containing certain
President, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch              dangerous substances ( 2 ), or at least by failing to inform the
 ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de         Commission of those provisions, the Italian Republic has
Almeida , P. J. G. Kaptevn, C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), J. L.          failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive — the
 ---pagebreak--- 9 . 11 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 336/ 13
Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward,                      Directive 64/433/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed
President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, C. Gulmann, P.                  to fulfil its obligations pursuant to Article 3 of Directive
Jann and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges; C. O. Lenz,                    92/5/EEC;
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 11 July 1996 , in which it:
                                                                      2 . Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
1 . Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed
                                                                      (') OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
      period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No L 57, 1992 , p . 1 .
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
      91 /157'/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and
      accumulators containing certain dangerous substances,
      the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under that Directive;
2 . Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 30 July 1996
(') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 78 , 1991 , p . 38 .                                    in Case C-84/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                      Supreme Court of Ireland ): Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm
                                                                      ve Ticaret AS v. Minister for Transport, Energy and
                                                                          Communications, Ireland and the Attorney General f 1 )
                                                                      (Embargo against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
                                                                         (Serbia and Montenegro) — Impounding of an aircraft)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             ( 96/C 336/24 )
                         ( Sixth Chamber )
                          of 11 July 1996                                                (Language of the case: English)
       in Case C-304/95 : Commission of the European
              Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( J )                  In Case C-84/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/5/EEC —                 Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Supreme Court of
       Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)             Ireland for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                           ( 96/C 336/23 )                            before that court between Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm
                                                                      ve Ticaret AS and Minister for Transport, Energy and
                                                                      Communications, Ireland and the Attorney General — on
                 (Language of the case: Greek)                        the interpretation of Article 8 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                      No 990/93 of 26 April 1993 concerning trade between the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          European Economic Community and the Federal Republic
           published in the European Court Reports)                   of Yugoslavia ( Serbia and Montenegro ) ( 2 ) — the Court,
                                                                      composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.
In Case C-304/95 : Commission of the European                         Kakouris and D. A. O. Edward ( Presidents of Chambers ),
Communities ( Agent: Maria Kontou Durande ) v. Hellenic               G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn
Republic ( Agents : Aikaterini Samoni-Rantou and Nana                 ( Rapporteur ), J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón,
Dafniou ) — application for a declaration that, by failing to         Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett,
adopt and notify to the Commission within the prescribed              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions            30 July 1996 , in which it rules :
necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/5/EEC of
10 February 1992 amending and updating Directive                      Article 8 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 990/93 of
77/99/EEC on health problems affecting intra-Community                26 April 1993 concerning trade between the European
trade in meat products and amending Directive                         Economic Community and the Federal Republic of
64/433/EEC ( 2 ), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its      Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) applies to an aircraft
obligations pursuant to the EC Treaty and Directive                   which is owned by an undertaking based in or operating
92/5/EEC — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of:                  from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn            Montenegro), even though the owner has leased it for four
and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ), Judges; C. O. Lenz,                  years to another undertaking, neither based in nor operating
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                    from that Republic and in which no person or undertaking
judgment on 11 July 1996, in which it:                                based in or operating from that republic has a majority or
                                                                      controlling interest.
1 . Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
      period the laws, regulations and administrative                 (M OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive           ( 2 ) OJ No L 102 , 1993 , p . 14 .
      92/5/EEC of 10 February 1 992 amending and updating
      Directive 77/99/EEC on health problems affecting
      intra-Community trade in meat products and amending


title: Case C-227/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank Amsterdam by judgment of that Court of 21 May 2003 in the case of A.J. Van Pommeren-Bourgondiën against Raad van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank

text:
C 171/18               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         19.7.2003
2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.                       2.    Does the fact that under the legislation of that Member
                                                                              State the person has the option of being voluntarily
                                                                              insured in respect of a number of branches of social
                                                                              security, without such voluntary insurance being con-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               ditional on his remaining resident in that Member State,
                                                                              have any bearing on the answer to Question 1?
Directive 98/79/EC establishes harmonised rules applicable to
the characteristics and authorisation procedures for in vitro           If the answer to the Question 1 is in the negative, the following
diagnostic medical devices in order to ensure their free                question is referred in the alternative:
movement under the best safety conditions. Article 22 of the
directive provides that Member States are to adopt the laws,            3.    In a situation such as that described above, is Article 39
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply                 EC to be interpreted as meaning that the replacement
with that directive not later than 7 December 1999 and that                   of compulsory insurance with voluntary insurance is
they are immediately to inform the Commission thereof. The                    incompatible therewith where the reason for the termin-
Commission received from the French authorities Order                         ation of the compulsory insurance is the introduction of
No 2001-198 of 1 March 2001 which contains the legal                          a residence requirement?
provisions necessary to transpose the directive. However, it is
clear from various letters from those authorities that the              (1 ) OJ 1971, L 149, p. 2.
implementing decrees have still to be adopted and published
before certain provisions of the order become applicable. Since
the Commission has not received any information from which
it could conclude that those decrees have been adopted, it
considers that the French Republic has not yet taken all the
measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event,
has not communicated those measures to the Commission.                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein oikeus
                                                                        by order of that Court of 23 May 2003 in the case of The
                                                                        Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy against
( 1) OJ L 331, 7.12.1998, p. 1.
                                                                                LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy
                                                                                (Case C-228/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/26)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank
Amsterdam by judgment of that Court of 21 May 2003 in                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the case of A.J. Van Pommeren-Bourgondiën against Raad                  European Communities by order of the Korkein oikeus
        van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank                     (Supreme Court) of 23 May 2003, received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 26 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                        of The Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy against
                         (Case C-227/03)                                LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy on the following questions:
                         (2003/C 171/25)                                When applying Article 6(1)(c) of the First Council Directive
                                                                        89/104/EEC ( 1) to approximate the laws of the Member States
                                                                        relating to trade marks:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  (1) What are the criteria
European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank Amster-
dam (District Court, Amsterdam) of 21 May 2003, received at                   (a)   on the basis of which the question of regarding a
the Court Registry on 26 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling                         product as a spare part or accessory is to be decided,
in the case of A.J. Van Pommeren-Bourgondiën against Raad                           and
van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank on the following
questions:                                                                    (b) on the basis of which those products to be regarded
                                                                                as other than spare parts and accessories which can
1.    Does Article 13(2)(f) of Regulation No 1408/71 ( 1) pre-                      also fall within the scope of the said subparagraph
      clude legislation of a Member State under which a person                      are to be determined?
      who has ceased all occupational activity in its territory
      remains insured under that legislation only if he continues       (2) Is the permissibility of the use of a third party’s trade
      to reside there, whilst that person remains insured under               mark to be assessed differently, depending on whether
      the legislation of that Member State in respect of certain              the product is like a spare part or accessory or whether it
      other branches of social security irrespective of his place             is a product which can fall within the scope of the said
      of residence?                                                           subparagraph on another basis?


title: Judgment of the Court 5 February 2002 in Case C-255/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Anna Humer (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Definition of "family benefits" — Payment of advances on maintenance payments — Condition that the minor child must be resident within the national territory — Entitlement to benefits abroad)

text:
6.4.2002                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 84/5
1.    Articles 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 EC and             1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
      81 EC) do not preclude national legislation which, in the                    European Communities of 22 April 1999 in Case T-112/97
      context of a summary procedure for the recovery of debts relating            Monsanto v Commission;
      to the fees of an architect, a member of a professional
      association, requires the court seised of the dispute to follow the    2.    Dismisses the application for annulment of Decision C(97)
      opinion of that association in relation to the settlement of those           148 final of the Commission of 14 January 1997 concerning
      fees in so far as that opinion ceases to be binding where the                the definition of a position, in accordance with Article 175 of
      debtor initiates proceedings inter partes.                                   the EC Treaty, on the inclusion of bovine somatotrophin in
                                                                                Annex II to Regulation No 2377/90;
2.    Articles 5 and 85 of the Treaty do not preclude national
      legislation which provides that the members of a profession may        3.    Orders Monsanto Company to bear its own costs and to
      set at their discretion the fees for certain services which they             pay the costs incurred by the Commission of the European
      perform.                                                                     Communities both before the Court of First Instance and the
                                                                                Court of Justice;
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.                                                   4.    Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs incurred both
                                                                                before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           8 January 2002                                                              5 February 2002
                                                                             in Case C-255/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-248/99 P: French Republic v Monsanto Com-                                   the Oberster Gerichtshof): Anna Humer (1)
                                pany (1)
                                                                             (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Definition of ‘family
(Appeal — Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 — Application to                       benefits’ — Payment of advances on maintenance payments
include a recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST) in the                      — Condition that the minor child must be resident within
list of substances not subject to a maximum residue limit —                     the national territory — Entitlement to benefits abroad)
Prohibition on placing that substance on the market —
            Rejection of the application for inclusion)                                                 (2002/C 84/09)
                            (2002/C 84/08)                                                       (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: English)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-255/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                             by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             in the proceedings pending before that court concerning the
In Case C-248/99 P, French Republic (agents: initially                       minor Anna Humer, on the interpretation of Articles 3, 4(1)(h),
R. Abraham and J.-F. Dobelle and K. Rispal-Bellanger and                     73 and 74 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
C. Vasak, and, subsequently, G. de Bergues): Appeal against                  14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                  employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
Communities (Second Chamber) of 22 April 1999 in                             of their families moving within the Community, as amended
Case T-112/97 Monsanto v Commission [1999] ECR II-1277,                      and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to                2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), and of Articles 3(1)
the proceedings being: Monsanto Company, registered in                       and 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware (United                    15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers
States of America), (agents: C. Stanbrook, QC, and D. Holland,               within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II),
barrister), and Commission of the European Communities                       p. 475), the Court, composed of: P. Jann, President of the First
(agents: J.-L. Dewost, R. Wainwright and T. Christoforou) the                and Fifth Chambers, acting for the President, F. Macken
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the                and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
Chamber, A. La Pergola, L. Sevón (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet                  D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet,
and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges, Advocate General: S. Alber,                   R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges, Advocate General:
Registrar: L. Hewlett, Administrator, has given a judgment on                S. Alber, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has
8 January 2002, in which it:                                                 given a judgment on 5 February 2002, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/6                    EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
a)    A benefit such as the advance on maintenance payments                 for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
      provided for by the Österreichische Bundesgesetz über die            that court between Carl Kühne GmbH & Co. KG, Rich.
      Gewährung von Vorschüssen auf den Unterhalt von Kindern               Hengstenberg GmbH & Co., Ernst Nowka GmbH & Co. KG
      (Unterhaltsvorschussgesetz) (Austrian Federal Law on the Grant        and Jütro Konservenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG — on the validity
      of Advances for the Maintenance of Children), adopted in              of Commission Regulation (EC) No 590/1999 of 18 March
      1985, is a family benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(h)       1999 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC)
      of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971                No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications
      on the application of social security schemes to employed             and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in
      persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their             Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ 1999 L 74,
      families moving within the Community, as amended and                  p. 8) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric,
      updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December            President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President of
      1996.                                                                 the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                            R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
b)    A person, one or other of whose parents is an employed person         General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
      or is out of work, comes within the scope ratione personae of         a judgment on 6 December 2001, in which it has ruled:
      Regulation No 1408/71, as amended, as a member of the
      family of a worker within the meaning of Article 2(1) of
                                                                            Consideration of the question referred has not revealed any matter of
      Regulation No 1408/71, read in the light of Article 1(f)(i)
                                                                            such a nature as to affect the validity of Commission Regulation (EC)
      thereof.
                                                                            No 590/1999 of 18 March 1999 supplementing the Annex to
c)    Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation No 1408/71 are to be                 Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical
      construed as meaning that, where a minor child resides with the       indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down
      parent who has custody in a Member State other than the               in Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, in so far as it
      Member State providing the benefit, and where the other parent,       registers the designation ‘Spreewälder Gurken’.
      who is under an obligation to pay maintenance, works or is
      unemployed in the Member State providing the benefit, that            (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
      child is entitled to receive a family benefit such as the advance
      on maintenance payments provided for by the Unterhaltsvor-
      schussgesetz.
(1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 27 November 2001
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                in Case C-270/99 P: Z v European Parliament (1)
                         of 6 December 2001
                                                                            (Appeal — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Failure
in Case C-269/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   to comply with the time-limits laid down in Article 7 of
the Landgericht Hamburg): Carl Kühne GmbH & Co. KG,                         Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the
Rich. Hengstenberg GmbH & Co., Ernst Nowka GmbH &                                                 European Communities)
   Co. KG v Jütro Konservenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/11)
(Agricultural products and foodstuffs — Geographical indi-
cations and designations of origin — Simplified registration
procedure — Protection of the designation ‘Spreewälder                                           (Language of the case: French)
                                Gurken’)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                            (2002/C 84/10)                                                      in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            In Case C-270/99 P: Z, an official of the European Parliament,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis,
                     in the European Court Reports)                         avocat, appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                            Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of
                                                                            4 May 1999 in Case T-242/97 Z v Parliament [1999] ECR
In Case C-269/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                  I-A-77 and II-401, seeking to have that judgment set aside in
EC from the Landgericht (Regional Court) Hamburg (Germany)                  so far as the Court of First Instance dismissed Z’s action against


title: Case C-54/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Importation of a vehicle registered in another Member State — Obligation to obtain a transfer licence)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-54/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Importation of a vehicle registered in another Member State - Obligation to obtain a transfer licence)
   (2007/C 95/11)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 28 and 30 EC — Import by a person resident in Finland of a vehicle already registered in another Member State — Obligation to obtain, at the frontier point, a transfer licence usually valid for seven days and to take out an insurance policy for the vehicle
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by requiring a transfer licence for the putting into circulation of vehicles lawfully registered and used in another Member State, as provided for by Decree No 1598/1995 on vehicle registration (asetus ajoneuvojen rekisteröinnistä (1598/1995)) of 18 December 1995, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case T-313/09: Action brought on 6 August 2009 — Onidol v Commission

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/14

         Action brought on 6 August 2009 — Onidol v Commission
   (Case T-313/09)
   2009/C 244/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Organisation nationale interprofessionnelle des graines et fruits oléagineux (Onidol) (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Le Bret et L. Olza Moreno, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final () of 10 December 2008, by which the Commission held that the framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the French agricultural interprofessional organisations, consisting of aid for technical assistance, for production and marketing of high-quality agricultural products, for research and development and for advertising in favour of primary producers and undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products, financed by voluntary levies made compulsory by interministerial order taken from the members of those interprofessional organisations constitutes State aid compatible with the common market.

               —

               The pleas and main arguments put forward by the applicant are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-293/09 CNIEL v Commission.