title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 July 1996 in Case T-587/93: Elena Ortega Urretavizcaya v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Member of the temporary staff - Offer - Temporary staff contract - Alteration of grade and duties - Legitimate expectations)

text:
24 . 8 . 96             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 247/ 13
European Communities, represented in Case T-528/93 ,                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
initially by Berend Jan Drijber, of its Legal Service , and                                          of 11 July 1996
Géraud de Bergues, subsequently by Mr Drijber alone, in
Case T-542/93 , by Berend Jan Drijber, assisted by Alberto                      in Case T-587/93 : Elena Ortega Urretavizcaya v.
Dal Ferro, in Cases T-543/93 and T-546/93 , by Berend Jan                          Commission of the European Communities ( )
Drijber and Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz, and , at the                 (Officials — Member of the temporary staff — Offer —
hearing, by Guy Charrier, supported in Case T-528/93                      Temporary staff contract — Alteration ofgrade and duties
by European Broadcasting Union , based in Geneva                                             — Legitimate expectations)
( Switzerland ), represented by Hanns Ullrich , a university                                          ( 96/C 247/27 )
professor in Munich , with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jean Welter, 100
Boulevard de la Pétrusse, in Case T-542/93 by                                             (Language of the case: Spanish)
Radiotelevisione Italiana SpA ( RAI ), established in Rome,
represented by Patrizia Ferrara Ginsburg, of the
Luxembourg Bar, Alessandro Pace and Gian Luigi Tosato,                   In Case T-587/93 : Elena Ortega Urretavizcaya , a member of
of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg               the temporary staff of the Commission of the European
at the Chambers of Patrizia Ferrara Ginsburg, 31 Avenue                  Communities , residing in Brussels, represented by Antonio
Guillaume, and in Cases T-543/93 and T-546/93 by                         Creus, of the Barcelona Bar, and Bonifacio Garcia Porras, of
Radiotelevisión Española ( RTVE ), established in Madrid,                the Salamanca Bar, at the Chambers of Messrs Cuatrecasas,
represented initially by Alfredo Sanchez-Bella Carswell ,                78 Avenue d'Auderghem , Brussels , v. the Commission of the
Rafael Aldama Caso and Jose Rivas Andres, of the Madrid                  European Communities ( Agents : Ana Maria Alves Vieira
Bar, subsequently by Rafael Aldama Caso and Jose Rivas                   and Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz ) — application for,
Andres, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 first, the annulment of the decision as to grading contained
Chambers of Jean Welter, 100 Boulevard de la Pétrusse —                  in Articles 2 and 3 of applicant's temporary staff contract
application for annulment of Commission Decision                         and, second , for compensation , — the Court of First
93/403/EEC of 11 June 1993 relating to a proceeding                      Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen ,
pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( IV/32.150 —                   President, R. García-Valdecasas and J. Azizi , Judges ; B.
EBU/Eurovision System, OJ No I. 179, 1993 , p. 23 ) — the                Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
Court of First Instance of the European Communities ( First              a judgment on 11 July 1996 in which it :
Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of: A. Saggio,
President, H. Kirschner, A. Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili and
                                                                         1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it
R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; Registrar, J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                                                                               requests the Court to order the defendant to adopt a new
Administrator, has given a judgment in which it:                               decision ;
1 . annuls Commission Decision 93/403/EEC of 1 1 June
     1993 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of             2 . annuls the defendant 's decision as to grading, as
     the EEC Treaty (IV/32A 50 — EBU/Eurovision                                provided for in the contract of employment;
     System);
                                                                         3 . sets the amount to be paid to the applicant by way of
2 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay                     compensation as the difference between, on the one
     the costs incurred by the applicants and those incurred                   hand, the net salary which she would have received ifshe
     by the intervener Sociedade Independente de                               had been placed as from 1 March 1 993 in grade 3 , with
     Comunicação SA ;                                                          the step fixed in accordance with the grade in
                                                                               administration decision , multiplied by the number of
                                                                               months between the date on which the contested
3 . orders Reti Televisive Italiane SpA to bear the costs                      decision was adopted and the date of delivery of this
     incurred by it in connection with the intervention of                     judgment, taking into account the automatic advances
     Radiotelevisione Italiana SpA ; orders Gestevisión                        in step for which she would have qualified and, on the
     Telecinco SA and Antena 3 de Television to bear the
                                                                               other hand, the salary which she actually received;
     costs respectively incurred by them in connection with
     the interventions of Radiotelevisión Española;
                                                                         4 . adds to the amount referred to at point (3) above interest
4 . orders the intervener European Broadcasting Union to                       at 8 % as from 23 December 1 993 until payment;
     bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the
     applicant Métropole Television SA in connection with                5 . dismisses the claim for compensation for non-material
     its intervention; orders the interveners Radiotelevisione                 damage;
     Italiana SpA and Radiotelevisión Española to bear their
     own costs .
                                                                         6 . orders the defendant to pay all the costs.
(>) OJ No C 306 , 12 . 11 . 1 993 ; OJ No C 328 , 4 . 12 . 1993 ; and OJ
    No C 325 , 2 . 12 . 1993 .                                           f 1 ) O I No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .


title: Case C-628/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Braunschweig (Germany) lodged on 7 December 2011 — Proceedings for a financial penalty against International Jet Management GmbH

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Braunschweig (Germany) lodged on 7 December 2011 — Proceedings for a financial penalty against International Jet Management GmbH
   (Case C-628/11)
   2012/C 80/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Braunschweig

      Parties to the main proceedings

   International Jet Management GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does it fall within the scope of the prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article 18 TFEU (formerly Article 12 EC) if a Member State (Federal Republic of Germany) requires an airline to obtain permission to make inward flights in respect of charter flights (commercial flights in non-scheduled traffic) from non-member countries into the territory of that Member State, where that airline holds a valid operating licence within the meaning of Articles 3 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community, issued in another Member State (Republic of Austria)?

               2.

               If the reply to question 1 is in the affirmative, is the requirement for permission in itself contrary to Article 18 TFEU (formerly Article 12 EC) if permission to make an inward flight, the obtaining of which can be enforced by means of an administrative fine, is required for flight services from non-member countries by airlines which have received an operating licence in the other Member States, but not by airlines with an operating licence in the Federal Republic of Germany?

               3.

               If the case falls within the scope of Article 18 TFEU (formerly Article 12 EC) (question 1) but the requirement for permission is not itself found to be discriminatory (question 2), may the grant of permission to make an inward flight in respect of the appellant’s flight services from non-member countries to the Federal Republic of Germany be made conditional, on pain of an administrative fine, and without breaching the prohibition of discrimination, on whether the airline of the Member State proves to the authority which grants permission that airlines with an operating licence in the Federal Republic of Germany are not in a position to carry out the flights (non-availability declaration)?


title: Case C-480/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) made on 7 November 2008 — Maria Teixeira v London Borough of Lambeth, Secretary of State for the Home Department

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) made on 7 November 2008 — Maria Teixeira v London Borough of Lambeth, Secretary of State for the Home Department
   (Case C-480/08)
   (2009/C 32/23)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maria Teixeira

      Defendants: London Borough of Lambeth, Secretary of State for the Home Department
   Questions referred
   In circumstances where (i) an EU citizen came to the United Kingdom (ii) the EU citizen was for certain periods a worker in the United Kingdom (iii) the EU citizen ceased to be a worker but did not depart from the United Kingdom, (iv) the EU citizen has not retained her status as a worker and has no right to reside under Article 7 and has no right of permanent residence under Article 16 of Directive 2004/38 (1) of the Council and the European Parliament (v) the EU citizen's child entered education at a time when the EU citizen was not a worker but the child remained in education in the United Kingdom during periods when the EU citizen was in work in the United Kingdom, (vi) the EU citizen is the primary carer of her child and (vii) the EU citizen and her child are not self-sufficient:

               (1)

               does the EU citizen only enjoy a right of residence in the United Kingdom if she satisfies the conditions set out in Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004?;

         OR

               (2)

                           (i)

                           does the EU citizen enjoy a right to reside derived from Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 (2), as interpreted by the Court of Justice, without being required to satisfy the conditions set out in Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004; and

                           (ii)

                           if so, must she have access to sufficient resources so as not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their proposed period of residence and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State?;

                           (iii)

                           if so, must the child have first entered education at a time when the EU citizen was a worker in order to enjoy a right to reside derived from Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, or is it sufficient that the EU citizen has been a worker at some time after the child commenced education?;

                           (iv)

                           does any right that the EU citizen has to reside, as the primary carer of a child in education, cease when her child attains the age of eighteen?

               (3)

               if the answer to question 1 is yes, is the position different in circumstances such as the present case where the child commenced education prior to the date by which Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 was to be implemented by the Member States but the mother did not become the primary carer and did not claim the right to reside on the basis that she was the primary carer of the child until March 2007, ie after the date by which the Directive was to be implemented?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 158, p. 77).

      (2)  Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ L 257, p. 2).


title: Action brought on 7 May 1997 by Natural Van Dam AG and Danser Container Line BV against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-155/97)

text:
No C 212/30             I EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        12. 7. 97
the administration. As a result, despite its particularly                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
insecure nature, she was left in ignorance of her situation
for nearly three months . In the applicant's view, such                   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
conduct on the part of the Parliament is unacceptable and                 relied on in Case T-140/97.
caused her not only material damage, but also non
material damage .
(') Judgment of 14 May 1996 in Case T-82/95 ( OJ No C 180,
    22 . 6 . 1996 , p. 28 ).
                                                                          Action brought on 7 May 1997 by Natural Van Dam AG
                                                                          and Danser Container Line BV against the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-155/97)
Action brought on 29 April 1997 by Bernard Yasse                                                          ( 97/C 212/60 )
              against the European Investment Bank
                             ( Case T-141/97)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                               ( 97/C 212/59 )
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European
                    (Language of the case: French)                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities on 7 May 1997 by
 An action against the European Investment Bank was                       Natural Van Dam AG, a company incorporated under
 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European               Swiss law, and Danser Container Line BV, represented by
 Communities on 29 April 1997 by Bernard Yasse, residing                  J. Van Dam, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
 at Fauvillers ( Belgium), represented by Pascale Delvaux de              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of F. Entringer,
 Fenffe and Pierre-Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar,                34a Rue Philippe II .
 with an address for service at Schouweiler ( Luxembourg )
 at the Chambers of Michel Hautem, 90 Route de Longwy.
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
 The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                          — annul the decision of the European Commission
 — annul the decision taken on 31 January 1997 by the                             of 7 March 1997 ( SG(97) D/1862 ), whereby
      European Investment Bank ( EIB ),                                           it was decided not to grant the applicants the
                                                                                exemption applied for under Article 8 ( 3 ) ( c ) of
 — as a consequence, order the applicant to be reinstated                         Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1101 /89 (*), and,
      in his duties,                                                              notwithstanding that decision, grant the exemption
                                                                                sought,
 — order the EIB to pay the applicant:
                                                                           — order the defendant to pay the costs .
      — upon his reinstatement, the sum of Bfrs 2 666 466
            — a provisional amount subject to increase in the              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
            course of the proceedings — representing salary
            arrears, together with Bfrs 1 000 000 by way of
            compensation for material and non-material                     The applicants operate a container line service on the
            damage,                                                        Rhine . They are contemplating the construction of three
                                                                           specialized vessels intended for the transportation of
      — should his reinstatement prove impossible :                        certain hazardous materials, in respect of which they
                                                                           have sought from the Commission exemption from
            — the sum of Bfrs 1 390 150 by way of ordinary                 the prohibition contained in Article 8 ( 1 ) of the
                compensatory settlement for lawful dismissal,              aforementioned Regulation .
            — the sum of Bfrs 35 986 625 subject to increase
                or adjustment in the course of the proceedings,            In their view, the rejection of their application is contrary
            — the sum of Bfrs 2 500 000 by way of                          to the objective of the regulation, which is not aimed at
                compensation for the loss of preferential rates            curbing the influx of new cargo capacity into the inland
                of interest on building loans,                             waterway system. The applicants further complain that
                                                                           the Commission 's assessment of the facts is incorrect and
             — Bfrs 1 000 000 by way of compensation for the                deficient and that its statement of reasons for its decision
                injury to his professional reputation,                      is defective .
  — order the EIB to pay the sum of Bfrs 300 000 to the                     ( 1 ) Council Regulation (EEC ) No 1101 /89 of 27 April 1989 on
       applicant in his capacity as legal guardian of the                         structural improvements in inland waterway transport ( OJ No
       person and property of his child who is a minor,                           L 116 , 28 . 4 . 1989, p. 25 ).
  — order the EIB to bear all costs .


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 7 December 1995 in Case C-449/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret): Rockfon A/S v. Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (Collective redundancies - Article 1 of Directive 75/129/EEC - Definition of 'establishment' - Company forming part of a group)

text:
3 . 2 . 96             EN |                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 31 /7
      marketing of vegetable propagating and planting                   2 . The term 'establishment' appearing in Article 1 (1 ) (a) of
      material, other than seed and Council Directive                        the aforesaid directive must be understood as meaning,
      92/34/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the marketing of fruit                   depending on the circumstances, the unit to which the
      plant propagating material and fruit plants intended for               workers made redundant are assigned to carry out their
      fruit production, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil            duties. It is not essential, in order for there to be an
      its obligations under Article 25 of Directive 92/33/EEC                'establishment', for the unit in question to be endowed
      and Article 26 of Directive 92/34/EEC.                                 with a management which can independently effect
                                                                             collective redundancies .
2 . The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                        (>) OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
(>) OJ No C 159, 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Fifth Chamber)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( First Chamber )                                                    of 7 December 1995 )
                                                                        in Case C-472/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                      of 7 December 1995
                                                                        the Pretore di Lecce ): Luigi Spano and Others v. Fiat
    in Case C-449/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                    Geotech SpA and Fiat Hitachi Excavators SpA ( 1 )
           from the 0stre Landsret): Rockfon A/S v.                     (Safeguarding of employees ' rights in the event of transfers
             Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark ( )                                               of undertakings)
(Collective redundancies — Article 1 of Directive                                                    ( 96/C 31 /14 )
75/129/EEC — Definition of 'establishment' — Company
                    forming part of a group)
                            ( 96/C 31 / 13 )                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
                 (Language of the case: Danish)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            In Case C-472/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                        of the EC Treaty by the Pretore di Lecce ( Magistrate's
                                                                        Court, Lecce ) (Italy ) for a preliminary ruling in the
In Case C-449/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177             proceeding pending before that court between Luigi Spano
of the EC Treaty from the 0stre Landsret ( Eastern Regional             and Others and Fiat Geotech SpA and Fiat Hitachi
Court ) ( Denmark ) for a preliminary ruling in the                     Excavators SpA on the interpretation of Council Directive
proceedings pending before that court between Rockfon A/S               77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of
and Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark — on the                         the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of
interpretation of Article 1 of Council Directive 75/129/EEC             employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,
of 17 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of                 businesses or parts of businesses ( OJ 1977, No L 61 , p. 26 )
the Member States relating to collective redundancies ( OJ              — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ) composed of J. -P. Puissochet
1975 , No L 48 , p. 29 ) — the Court ( First Chamber ),                 ( Rapporteur ), acting as President of the Chamber, J. C.
composed of D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ), President of                Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, P. Jann and L. Sevon,
the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevon, Judges; G. Cosmas,                   Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Advocate General; H. A. Ruhl, Principal Administrator, for              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December 1995 , in             7 December 1995, in which it rules :
which it rules :
                                                                        Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the
1 . Article I (1 ) (a) of Council Directive 75/129/EEC of               approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
      17 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of              the safeguarding of employees ' rights in the event of
      the Member States relating to collective redundancies is          transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses
      to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude            is applicable to the transfer of an undertaking which under
      two or more interrelated undertakings in a group,                 Article 2 (5) (c) of Italian Law No 675 of 12 August 1977
      neither or none of which has decisive influence over the          has been declared to be in critical difficulties.
      other or others, from establishing a joint recruitment
      and dismissal department so that, in particular,                   (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
      dismissals on grounds of redundancy in one of the
      undertakings can take place only with that department's
      approval.


C 372/18              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 23.12.2000
      Removal from the Register of Case T-121/98 (1)                          Removal from the Register of Case T-232/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 372/35)                                                         (2000/C 372/37)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                          (Language of the case: English)
By order of 29 September 2000, the President of the Second              By order of 6 September 2000, the President of the Third
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the Register of Case               Communities ordered the removal from the Register of Case
                                                                        T-232/99, Margaret McKenzie-Campbell v Commission of the
T-121/98, Taurus Beteiligungs-GmbH & Co. KG v Commission
                                                                        European Communities.
of the European Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
(1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
     Removal from the Register of Case T-204/98 R (1)
                                                                               Removal from the Register of Case T-39/00 (1)
                       (2000/C 372/36)
                                                                                (2000/C 372/38)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
By order of 11 October 2000, the President of the Chamber of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                 By order of 27 September 2000, the President of the Fifth
ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-204/98 R,               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
British Sugar plc v Commission of the European Communities.             Communities ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                        Case T-39/00, PlantaVet Vertrieb biologischer Tierarzneimittel
                                                                        GmbH v the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.                                               Products.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.


title: Case T-3/04: Action brought on 7 January 2004 by Simonds Farsons Cisk Plc., against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
6.3.2004              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 59/33
In support of their claims the applicants submit that the                       as it refused the application for registration of VELOCITY
Commission, having only limited discretion, was obliged, in                     as a trade mark on the basis of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) of
accordance with the principle of sound administration, to deal                  the CTMR;
diligently and impartially with the complaint in this case. They
argue that in that respect, that the Commission’s discretion in           —     order the Office to bear its own costs and pay those of
the matter at issue must correspond to the objective of                         the Applicant.
establishing a scheme which ensures that competition is not
distorted in the common market, so that the Member States
do not adopt, in favour of one undertaking, measures which
may give rise to the elimination or restriction of effective
competition in the market at issue.                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Trade mark concerned:           Verbal trade mark ‘VELOCITY’ —
This application also takes account of the fact that the                                                  Application No 1661842.
Commission itself has assessed the conditions of competition
in the referral decision, so as to include all the criteria which         Products or services:           Products and services in classes 9,
may be used for the purpose of determining whether the                                                    16, 37 and 42.
measures adopted maintain or preserve competition in the
markets at issue, and also that it has accepted commitments
                                                                          Challenged        Decision      Refusal of registration by the
which are substantially different in another current and very
                                                                          before the Board of             examiner.
similar case (M.2876 Newscorp/telepiú), and that therefore it
                                                                          Appeal:
cannot be claimed that the measures adopted by the Spanish
Government maintain or preserve competition in the markets
concerned.                                                                Pleas in law:                   Infringement of Article 7 (1) (b)
                                                                                and (c) of Regulation No 40/94.
(1) OJ L 395 of 30.12.89, p. 1.
                                                                          Action brought on 7 January 2004 by Simonds Farsons
                                                                          Cisk Plc., against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                              Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Action brought on 2 January 2004 by Electronics for
Imaging, Inc., against Office for Harmonisation in the                                               (Case T-3/04)
    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                (2004/C 59/53)
                          (Case T-1/04)
                                                                          (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to article 131(2) of
                         (2004/C 59/52)                                   the Rules of Procedure — language in which the case was submitted:
                                                                                English)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            7 January 2004 by Simonds Farsons Cisk Plc., Mriehel, Malta,
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                represented by Ms M. Bagnall and Mr I. Wood, Solictors and
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                Mr R. Hacon, Barrister. SA Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière
2 January 2004 by Electronics for Imaging, Inc., Foster City,             de Spa, en abrégé SA Spa Monopole NV., was also a party to
California, USA, represented by Mr S. Malynicz, Barrister.                the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal dated              —     annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of
      25 August 2003, case number R 0793/2002-4 in so far                       4 November 2003;
 ---pagebreak--- C 59/34               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         6.3.2004
—     uphold Decision No 2880/2002 of 27 September 2002                 Action brought on 5 January 2004 by R.K. Achaiber Sing
      of the Opposition Division;                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                and Council of the European Union
—     require OHIM to refuse the CTM Application;
                                                                                (Case T-4/04)
—     order Spa Monopole and/or OHIM to (a) bear the costs
      of the Opposition proceedings (b) the proceedings before
                                                                                (2004/C 59/54)
      the Board of Appeal, and (c) the costs of these proceed-
      ings.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties and Council of the European Union was brought before
Applicant for the Com-       S.A. Spa Monopole N.V.                     the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
munity trade mark:                                                      5 January 2004 by R.K. Achaiber Sing, residing in Leiden
                                                                        (Netherlands), represented by J.G.G. Wilgers.
The Community trade          The figurative mark ‘KINJI by SPA’
mark concerned:              for goods in Classes 29 and 32
                             (e.g. fruit pulp and mineral and           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             aerated waters and other non-
                             alcoholic drinks containing fruit          1.    Primarily, declare that Decision 2000/666/EC contains a
                             juice)                                           measure having an equivalent effect to a quantitative and
                                                                              qualitative restriction on imports between Member States
Proprietor of the right to   The applicant                                    of the World Trade Organisation and that this decision is
the trade mark or sign                                                        at variance with Article 131 of the EEC Treaty, with the
asserted by way of oppo-                                                      result that it is null and void;
sition in the opposition
proceedings:                                                            2.    Primarily and in the alternative, order the European
                                                                              Community to pay compensation in respect of the
Trade mark or sign           The Community trade mark ‘KIN-                   damage, to be quantified, which the applicant has
asserted by way of oppo-     NIE’ (No 427 237) for goods                      incurred as a result of the obligations arising under
sition in the opposition     in Class 32 (Beers; non-alcoholic                Decision 2000/666/EC;
proceedings:                 drinks; preparations for making
                             beverages)                                 3.    Order the Community to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Decision of the Oppo-        Rejection of the trade mark
sition Division:             application
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision of the Board of     Annulment of the Decision of the
Appeal:                      Opposition Division and rejection
                             of the opposition                          The applicant imports live birds from non-member countries
                                                                        and states that he is obliged under the contested decision to
Grounds of claim:            —     Violation of Article 8 (1)(b)        incur costs for the establishment of a quarantine area. He states
                                   of Regulation (EC) No 40/            further that, as he has recently discovered, he is obliged to
                                   94;                                  incur further costs by reason of the national provisions giving
                                                                        effect to the contested decision.
                             —     Breach of Article 73 of Regu-
                                   lation (EC) 40/94;
                                                                        The applicant submits that the contested decision is at
                             —     Likelihood of confusion on           variance with the Agreement establishing the World Trade
                                   the part of the public in all,       Organisation, and in particular with Articles 2(2) and 3 of the
                                   or alternatively in a signifi-       Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
                                   cant proportion of territories       Measures. In the applicant’s view, the contested decision
                                   within the European Com-             constitutes a hidden barrier to trade which makes commerce
                                   munity.                              in live, non-protected birds practically impossible.


title: Judgment of the Court of 5 October 2000 in Case C-434/98 P: Council of the European Union v Silvio Busacca and Others and Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Dispute between the Community and its servants — Appeal by an institution which did not intervene at first instance — Inadmissible)

text:
C 355/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          9.12.2000
T. Blanchet), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Dı́az                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Abad) — Appeals against the judgments of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of
30 September 1998 in Case T-154/96 Chvatal and Others v                                            of 5 October 2000
Court of Justice [1998] ECR-SC I-A-527 and II-1579 and Case
T-13/97 Losch v Court of Justice [1998] ECR-SC I-A-543 and
II-1633, seeking to have those judgments set aside, the other              in Case C-434/98 P: Council of the European Union v
parties to the proceedings being Christiane Chvatal and Others,            Silvio Busacca and Others and Court of Auditors of the
officials of the Court of Justice of the European Communities,                                European Communities (1)
represented by J.-N. Louis and T. Demaseure, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at Société de
Gestion Fiduciaire, Boîte Postale 585, Antoinette Losch, official          (Appeal — Officials — Dispute between the Community
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, rep-                  and its servants — Appeal by an institution which did not
resented by J.-N. Louis and T. Demaseure, of the Brussels Bar,                        intervene at first instance — Inadmissible)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at Société de
Gestion Fiduciaire, Boîte Postale 585, Court of Justice of the
European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg, and Kingdom                                                 (2000/C 355/03)
of the Netherlands, Bezuidenhoutseweg 67, The Hague —
the Court composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón and
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, A. La
Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm,
M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
trar, has given a judgment on 5 October 2000, in which it:                                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-434/98 P: Council of the European Union (Agents:
                                                                           J.-P. Jacqué, D. Canga Fano and T. Blanchet), supported by
1.    Sets aside the judgments of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Dı́az Abad) — Appeal against
      European Communities of 30 September 1998 in Case
                                                                           the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
      T-154/96 Chvatal and Others v Court of Justice and Case
                                                                           Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 30 September 1998 in Case
      T-13/97 Losch v Court of Justice;
                                                                           T-164/97 Busacca and Others v Court of Auditors [1998]
                                                                           ECR-SC I-A-565 and II-1699, seeking to have that judgment
                                                                           set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being Silvio
                                                                           Busacca and Others, officials of the Court of Auditors of the
2.    Dismisses the actions brought before the Court of First Instance     European Communities, represented by G. Vandersanden and
      in Cases T-154/96 and T-13/97;                                       L. Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, Boîte Postale
                                                                           585, and Court of Auditors of the European Communities,
                                                                           (Agent: P. Giusta) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
                                                                           Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward,
3.    Orders Christiane Chvatal and Others and Antoinette Losch,           L. Sevón and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chamber, C. Gulmann,
      the Court of Justice of the European Communities, the Council        A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm,
      of the European Union, the Kingdom of Spain and the Kingdom          M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
      of the Netherlands to bear their own costs, incurred both at first   D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
      instance and on appeal.                                              trar, has given a judgment on 5 October 2000, in which it:
                                                                           1.    Dismisses the appeal as inadmissible;
                                                                           2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs;
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.
                                                                           3.    Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the other
                                                                                costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 28 February 2002 in Case T-598/97: British Shoe Corporation Footwear Supplies Ltd e.a. v Council of the European Union (Anti-dumping duty — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
15.6.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 144/35
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 3.    Orders the Foreign Trade Association to bear its own costs and
                                                                                pay those incurred, as a result of its intervention, by the Council;
                          28 February 2002                                 4.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
in Case T-598/97: British Shoe Corporation Footwear
   Supplies Ltd e.a. v Council of the European Union (1)                   (1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.
(Anti-dumping duty — Action for annulment — Inadmissi-
                                 bility)
                           (2002/C 144/74)
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                28 February 2002
                                                                           in Case T-155/98: Société internationale de diffusion et
In Case T-598/97, British Shoe Corporation Footwear Supplies               d’édition (SIDE) v Commission of the European Com-
Ltd, established in Leicester (United Kingdom), Clarks Inter-                                           munities (1)
national Ltd, established in Somerset (United Kingdom), Deich-
mann-Schuhe GmbH & Co. Vertriebs KG, established in Essen
                                                                           (State aid — Operating aid — Article 92(1) and (3)(d) of
(Germany), Groupe André SA, established in Paris (France),
Reno Versandhandel GmbH, established in Thaleischweiler-                   the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) and
Froschen (Germany), Leder & Schuh AG, established in Graz                  (3)(d) EC) — Conditions for exemption from the prohibition
                                                                           under Article 92(1) of the Treaty — Reference market —
(Austria), represented by A. Bell and M. Powell, Solicitors, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by Foreign                                   Export aid in the book sector)
Trade Association (FTA), represented by B. Sheridan, Barrister,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of                                              (2002/C 144/75)
the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt, H.-J. Rabe and
G. Berrisch), supported by Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz, S. Meany and N. Khan)                                      (Language of the case: French)
and by Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure
(CEC), represented by P. Vlaemminck, J. Holmens and L. Van
Den Hende, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg: Application for the annulment of Council Regulation
(EC) No 2155/97 of 29 October 1997 imposing a definitive                   In Case T-155/98, Société internationale de diffusion and
anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with textile              d’édition (SIDE), established in Bagneux (France), represented
uppers originating in the People’s Republic of China and                   by N. Coutrelis, lawyer, with an address for service in
Indonesia and collecting definitively the provisional duty                 Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
imposed (OJ 1997 L 298, p. 1), Court of First Instance (Fourth             (Agents: G. Rozet and B. Mongin), supported by French
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: P. Mengozzi,                  Republic (Agents: J.-F. Dobelle, G. de Bergues and F. Million):
President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, V. Tiili, R. M. Moura Ramos              Application for annulment of the last sentence of Article 1
and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,              of Commission Decision 1999/133/EC of 10 June 1998
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 February 2002,               concerning State aid in favour of Coopérative d’exportation du
in which it:                                                               livre français (CELF) (OJ 1999 L 44, p. 37), Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
                                                                           of: P. Mengozzi, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, V. Tiili,
1.    Dismisses the application as inadmissible;                           R. M. Moura Ramos and J. D. Cooke, Judges; D. Christensen,
                                                                           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                           28 February 2002, in which it:
2.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and pay, jointly
      and severally, the costs incurred by the Council, with the
      exception of those relating to the intervention of the Foreign       1.    Annuls the last sentence of Article 1 of Commission Decision
      Trade Association, and by the Confédération européenne de                  1999/133/EC of 10 June 1998 concerning State aid in favour
      l’industrie de la chaussure;                                               of Coopérative d’exportation du livre français (CELF);


title: Case T-911/16: Action brought on 23 December 2016 — Wedl & Hofmann v EUIPO — Hesse (TESTA ROSSA)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/44

         Action brought on 23 December 2016 — Wedl & Hofmann v EUIPO — Hesse (TESTA ROSSA)
   (Case T-911/16)
   (2017/C 053/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Wedl & Hofmann GmbH (Mils/Hall in Tirol, Austria) (represented by: T. Raubal, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kurt Hesse (Nuremberg, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘TESTA ROSSA’ — EU trade mark No 7 070 519

      Proceedings before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 in Case R 68/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul or amend the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the applicant’s appeal and declared the applicant’s mark to be revoked in respect of Classes 7, 11, 20, parts of Classes 21 and 25, Class 28, parts of Class 30, and Classes 34 and 38, and in so far as it confirmed the decision of the Cancellation Division of 17 November 2015 in that regard (however, the part of the contested decision upholding the applicant’s appeal remains unchallenged by the applicant);

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Rule 40(5) of Regulation No 2868/95, in conjunction with Rule 22(3) and (4) thereof.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 14 December 1995 in Case C-387/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Pretura Circondariale di Genova): criminal proceedings against Giorgio Domingo Banchero (Articles 5, 30, 37, 85, 86, 90, 92 and 95 of the EC Treaty)

text:
No C 64/2             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         2 . 3 . 96
Article 4 (1 ) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December                 national market for products from other Member States
1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of                  or does not impede such access more than it impedes
equal treatment for men and women in matters of social                      access for domestic products within the distribution
security must be interpreted as not precluding national                     network, does not fall within the scope of Article 30 of
provisions under which employment regularly consisting of                   the EC Treaty;
fewer than 15 hours ' work a week and regularly attracting
remuneration of up to one-seventh of the average monthly              3 . Articles 5, 90 and 86 of the EC Treaty do not preclude
salary is excluded from the statutory old-age insurance                     national legislation, such as that in force in Italy, from
scheme, even where they affect considerably more women                      reserving the retail sale of manufactured tobacco
than men, since the national legislature was reasonably                     products to distributors who have been authorized by
entitled to consider that the legislation in question was                   the State;
necessary in order to achieve a social policy aim unrelated to
any discrimination on grounds of sex.                                 4 . Article 30 of the EC Treaty does not preclude national
                                                                            legislation, such as that in force in Italy, from penalizing
(!) OJ No C 205 , 29 . 7 . 1993 .                                           as a smuggling offence the unlawful possession by a
                                                                            consumer of manufactured tobacco products from
                                                                            other Member States on which excise duty in accord
                                                                            with Community law has not been paid, where the retail
                                                                            sale of those products is, like the retail sale of identical
                                                                            domestic products, reserved to distributors authorized
                                                                            by the State.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                     of 14 December 1995                              ( 1 ) OJ No C 256 , 21 . 9 . 1993 .
in Case C-387/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling made
by the Pretura Circondariale di Genova): criminal
     proceedings against Giorgio Domingo Banchero ( 1 )
(Articles 5, 30, 37, 85, 86, 90, 92 and 95 of the EC
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                               Treaty)
                                                                                14 December 1995
                           ( 96/C 64/03 )
                                                                      in Case C-444/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                      the Sozialgericht Speyer): Ursula Megner and Hildegard
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      Scheffel v. Innungskrankenkasse Vorderpfalz, now
                                                                                Innungskrankenkasse Rheinhessen-Pfalz ( 1 )
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          (Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social
         published in the European Court Reports)                     security — Article 4(1) ofDirective 79/7/EEC — Minor and
                                                                      short-term employment — Exclusion from compulsory
                                                                      old-age insurance and sickness insurance and from the
In Case C-387/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      obligation to pay unemployment insurance contributions)
of the EC Treaty by the Pretura Circondariale di Genova
                                                                                96/C 64/04
( District Magistrate's Court, Genoa ) ( Italy ), for a
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that
court against Giorgio Domingo Banchero — on the                                        (Language of the case: German)
interpretation of Articles 5 , 30, 37, 85 , 86 , 90, 92 and 95 of
the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Iglesias, President, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet                          published in the European Court Reports)
( Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.
Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P.            In Case C-444/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, for the Registrar,           of the EC Treaty from the Sozialgericht ( Social Court )
has given a judgment on 14 December 1995 , the operative              Speyer ( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in the
part of which is as follows :                                         proceedings pending before that court between Ursula
                                                                      Megner and Hildegard Scheffel and Innungskrankenkasse
 1 . Article 37 ofthe EC Treaty has no relevance with regard          Vorderpfalz, now Innungskrankenkasse Rheinhessen-Pfalz,
     to national legislation, such as that in force in Italy,          supported by Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinland-Pfalz,
                                                                       Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit and Firma G. F. Hehl & Co . — on
     which reserves the retail sale of manufactured tobacco
     products to distributors authorized by the State,                 the interpretation of Article 4 ( 1 ) of Council Directive
     provided that the State does not intervene in the                 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive
     procurement choices of retailers;                                 implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
                                                                       and women in matters of social security ( OJ No L 6 , 1979 ,
                                                                       p. 24 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
 2 . national legislation, such as that in force in Italy, which       President, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward
     reserves the retail sale of manufactured tobacco                  and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), F. A. Schockweiler,
     products, irrespective of their origin, to authorized             J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, P.
     distributors but does not thereby bar access to the               Jann, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; P. Leger,


title: Case C-36/15 P: Appeal brought on 28 January 2015 by Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2014 in Case T-556/12: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v Royalton Overseas Ltd

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/14

         Appeal brought on 28 January 2015 by Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2014 in Case T-556/12: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v Royalton Overseas Ltd
   (Case C-36/15 P)
   (2015/C 311/18)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Royalton Overseas Ltd, S.C. Romarose Invest Srl
   The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 29 April 2015.


title: Case C-409/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 July 2015 by ABZ Aardbeien Uit Zaad Holding BV, Agriom BV, Agrisemen BV, Anthura BV, Barenbrug Holding BV, De Bolster BV, Evanthia BV, Gebr. Vletter & Den Haan VOF, Hilverda Kooij BV, Holland-Select BV, Könst Breeding BV, Koninklijke Van Zanten BV, Kweek- en Researchbedrijf Agirco BV, Kwekerij de Wester-Bouwing BV, Limgroup BV, Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Het Idee BV against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 May 2015 in Case T-560/14: ABZ Aardbeien Uit Zaad Holding BV and others v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/7

         Appeal brought on 24 July 2015 by ABZ Aardbeien Uit Zaad Holding BV, Agriom BV, Agrisemen BV, Anthura BV, Barenbrug Holding BV, De Bolster BV, Evanthia BV, Gebr. Vletter & Den Haan VOF, Hilverda Kooij BV, Holland-Select BV, Könst Breeding BV, Koninklijke Van Zanten BV, Kweek- en Researchbedrijf Agirco BV, Kwekerij de Wester-Bouwing BV, Limgroup BV, Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Het Idee BV against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 May 2015 in Case T-560/14: ABZ Aardbeien Uit Zaad Holding BV and others v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-409/15 P)
   (2015/C 328/06)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: ABZ Aardbeien Uit Zaad Holding BV, Agriom BV, Agrisemen BV, Anthura BV, Barenbrug Holding BV, De Bolster BV, Evanthia BV, Gebr. Vletter & Den Haan VOF, Hilverda Kooij BV, Holland-Select BV, Könst Breeding BV, Koninklijke Van Zanten BV, Kweek- en Researchbedrijf Agirco BV, Kwekerij de Wester-Bouwing BV, Limgroup BV, Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Het Idee BV (represented by: P. de Jong, avocat, P. Vlaemminck, B. Van Vooren, advocaten)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Find that the General Court, in its Order in Case T-560/14, erred in law when it found that the appellants are not individually concerned by Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on compliance measures for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation in the Union;

               —

               Set aside in whole the Order of the General Court in Case T-560/14, and to declare that the appellants are directly and individually concerned by the contested Regulation, and therefore declare the application for annulment admissible;

               —

               Refer the case back to the General Court for Judgment on the merits.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      First ground of appeal — The appellants submit that the General Court erred in law when it found that they are not individually concerned by the contested Regulation. They submit that they are individually concerned within the meaning of Article 263(4) TFEU because a legal conflict exists between two international treaties to which the EU is a party (the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, and the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity), the first of which implements Article 13 EU Charter on freedom of scientific research. Subsequently, both international treaties were implemented by the EU in two directly effective Regulations: the earlier Regulation 2100/94 recognizing that fundamental right of freedom of research to the benefit of the appellants, the later contested Regulation 511/2014 severely curtailing it. In each Regulation, no legislative intervention at Member State level is required or even permitted under EU law, and no implementing or delegated acts are to be adopted at EU level.
   In that legal context, the appellants submit that they are individually (and directly) concerned within the meaning of Article 263(4) TFEU because the following conditions are fulfilled: they are members of a legal class of persons defined by a ‘peculiar legal attribute’ (as beneficiaries of a positive right of free access to commercial plant material, i.e. the breeders' exemption) which is not found in the contested Regulation itself but in another directly effective Regulation which requires no further implementation at national level; whereby the contested Regulation conflicts with higher rules of law, namely Article 13 of the EU Charter and an international agreement to which the EU is a party; whereby the legal class is closed and absolute, making the appellants not individually affected in socio-economic terms, but legally, since is only a single, fundamental breeders' exemption without ‘similar’ rights being affected.

      Second ground of appeal — The appellants submit that the General Court erred in law where it did not rule on whether the EU legislature was obliged to take particular account of the situation of the appellants on the basis of express provisions of higher-ranking rules of law, where the contested Regulation forces the appellants into a contractual relationship that impinges upon the higher-ranking rule of law, specifically Article 13 of the EU Charter.
   Third ground of appeal — The appellants submit that a finding of inadmissibility would lead to a gap in the system of EU judicial protection, impinging upon Article 47 of the EU Charter. On the one hand, plant breeders derive their right directly from the CPVR Regulation, which is the implementation by the EU of Article 13 EU Charter and international obligations of the EU under the UPOV Convention. On the other hand, the contested Regulation 511/2014 imposes a directly effective due diligence obligation, whereby the contested Regulation is itself the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol to which the EU is a contracting party. In both cases, absolutely no further implementation by either the EU institutions (in the form of regulatory EU acts), or by the Member States into their national laws, is necessary, or even legally permitted under EU law. As a consequence, Article 267 TFEU is not an actual possibility for judicial review, nor will there be regulatory acts within the meaning of Article 263(4) TFEU. The appellants submit that, when applying the criterion of paragraph 92 of the Inuit judgment (C-583/11 P) where the appropriate level of judicial review is linked to the responsibility for the implementation of the contested measure, the sole conclusion must be that, in this instance, the direct action under Article 263 TFEU is the only available and appropriate procedural avenue for judicial review.

      (1)  OJ L 150, p. 59.


title: Case T-7/00: An action brought on 18 January 2000 by Hyper Srl against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 149/34               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   27.5.2000
Action brought on 17 January 2000 by Technische Unie                     non-discrimination to single out TU as being the only FEG
BV against the Commission of the European Communities                    member liable, and the Commission has failed to provide a
                                                                         sufficient statement of reasons as to why TU should be held
                           (Case T-6/00)                                 liable together with FEG. In addition, the Commission has
                                                                         erred as regards the facts and the law. There was no collective
                                                                         exclusive dealing, no horizontal pricing pressure and thus no
                         (2000/C 149/65)                                 connection between the two. Furthermore, the Commission
                                                                         has infringed the rights of the defence in various ways. First,
                                                                         the decision was adopted out of time. Second, it is based on
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                        facts which were not mentioned in the statement of objections,
                                                                         and the Commission has acted contrary to the principle of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                presumption of innocence and the principle in dubio pro reo
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               flowing therefrom. Finally, the applicant claims that the fine
European Communities on 17 January 2000 by Technische                    imposed in unreasonable, or at any rate discriminatory and/or
Unie BV, established at Amstelveen, represented by P.V.F. Bos            lacking in a sufficient statement of reasons.
and M.A. Coumans, of the law firm Trenité van Doorne,
Rotterdam, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         (1) OJ L 39 of 14.2.2000.
Chambers of De Bandt, Van Hecke, Lagae & Loesch, 11 Rue
Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare the action admissible;
— primarily, annul the Commission’s decision (document
                                                                         An action brought on 18 January 2000 by Hyper Srl
    number C(1999) 3439 final) of 26 October 1999 (1)
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
    concerning a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC
    Treaty in Case IV/33.884 — Nederlandse Federatieve
    Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Ge-                                          (Case T-7/00)
    bied and Technische Unie (FEG and TU);
                                                                                (2000/C 149/66)
— in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 5(2) of that decision;
— in the further alternative, reduce the fine imposed in Article
    5(2) of that decision;                                                                 (Language of the case: German)
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 18 January 2000 by Hyper Srl,
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                     Limena, Italy, represented by Dr Dietrich Ehle and Dr Dirk
                                                                         Ehle, of the Cologne Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 Rue Michel
The applicant is the largest wholesale distributor of electrotech-
                                                                         Welter, Luxembourg.
nical fittings in the Netherlands and the largest member of
FEG, a sectorial association established to protect the common
interests of stockkeeping wholesalers of electrotechnical fit-           The applicant claims that the Court should:
tings. In response to a complaint submitted in 1991, the
Commission in 1999 adopted a decision in which it found                  — annul the Commission’s decision of 30 September 1999
that the applicant had infringed Article 81(1) EC by taking an               (REM 2/98),
active part in infringements committed by FEG. The latter had
infringed Article 81 EC by entering into a collective exclusive          — order the defendant to pay the costs.
dealing arrangement intended to prevent supplies to non-
members of FEG, on the basis of an agreement with the
Nederlandse Agentenvereniging op Elektrotechnisch Gebied
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
(‘NAVEG’) and of practices concerted with suppliers not
represented in NAVEG. The Commission further found that
the FEG had infringed Article 81(1) EC by directly and                   The Commission found in the contested decision addressed to
indirectly restricting the freedom of its members to determine           the Republic of Italy that the remission of import duties owed
their selling prices independently. A fine of EUR 2.15 million           by the applicant in the amount of LIT 170 465 765 was not
was imposed on the applicant. TU seeks annulment of                      justified. Those duties were levied in connection with the
the decision on the following grounds. To begin with, the                import of colour televisions from Turkey from April 1992 to
Commission is wrong to regard TU as being (individually)                 December 1993 and were remitted ex post facto on the ground
liable. TUs membership of FEG is not enough to render it                 that preference form A.TR.1 had been wrongly completed in
individually liable. Moreover, it is contrary to the principle of        Turkey.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.5.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 149/35
The essence of the applicant’s pleas in law and main arguments            The contested regulation, it is claimed, entirely upset the
are similar to those in Cases T-186/97 (1), T-187/97, T-191/97,           existing situation. Its effect is to exclude from the scope of
T-192/97, T-210/97 and T-211/97.                                          code 2001 90 50 mushrooms preserved in vinegar which still
                                                                          have a salt content in excess of 2,5 % even if such salt is added
                                                                          only for the purposes of preparation and not preservation.
(1) OJ 1997 C 318, p. 17.                                                 Those products will henceforth be subjected to the severest
                                                                          tariff conditions laid down for code 2003 10 of the combined
                                                                          nomenclature.
                                                                          In support, the applicant claims:
                                                                          — The Commission lacks competence by virtue of Article 26
                                                                               of the EC Treaty;
Action brought on 8 March 2000 by I.P.O.S.E.A. di Giusto                  — Article 9 of Regulation No 2658/87, the legal basis of the
Masiello & Figli v Commission of the European Communi-                         contested regulation, has been infringed and misapplied,
                               ties                                            in that the powers of the Commission provided for therein,
                                                                               being of an executive nature, may not be used in order to
                                                                               amend provisions of a substantive nature which define the
                          (Case T-49/00)                                       tariff conditions for goods. Secondly, in this case the
                                                                               requirements for amending the pre-existing provisions are
                                                                               not satisfied;
                         (2000/C 149/67)
                                                                          — The principle of equal treatment has been infringed in that
                                                                               the new regulation is extremely onerous only for the
                                                                               producers and importers of mushrooms which are pre-
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                             served in vinegar but are prepared using a high salt content.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 The applicant also considers that the contested regulation
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 8 March            contains an inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons
2000 by I.P.O.S.E.A. di Giusto Masiello & Figli, represented              and infringes the principle of proportionality and the principle
by Andrea Guarino and Alain Lorang, of the Rome and                       of the protection of legitimate expectations.
Luxembourg Bars respectively.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:             (1) OJ L 321 of 14.12.1999, p. 3.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 170 of 28.6.1997, p. 13.
— Annul Commission Regulation No 2626/99;
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Action brought on 8 March 2000 by Dalmine SpA against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant in this case, an importer of preserved vegetables
for human consumption, takes exception to Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2626/99 amending Annex I to Council                                              (Case T-50/00)
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff(1). One of
the main products in which it deals is cooked mushrooms of                                         (2000/C 149/68)
the ‘agaricus’ variety preserved in vinegar. Salt is then added to
them, in a concentration varying between 15 and 25 %.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Under the combined nomenclature established by Regulation
No 2685/87, mushrooms of the ‘agaricus’ variety could be                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
classified under three headings. To resolve this problem,                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1196/97 of 27 June 1997                     European Communities on 8 March 2000 by Dalmine SpA,
concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined            represented by Mario Siragusa and Francesca Maria Moretti, of
nomenclature was adopted (2).                                             the Rome and Venice Bars.


title: Case T-369/14: Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Sequoia Capital Operations LLC v OHIM — Sequoia Capital (SEQUOIA CAPITAL) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark SEQUOIA CAPITAL — Earlier Community word mark SEQUOIA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/50

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Sequoia Capital Operations LLC v OHIM — Sequoia Capital (SEQUOIA CAPITAL)
   (Case T-369/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark SEQUOIA CAPITAL - Earlier Community word mark SEQUOIA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion))
   (2015/C 389/55)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sequoia Capital Operations LLC (Menlo Park, California, United States) (represented by: F. Delord, A. Rendle, Solicitors, and G. Hollingworth, Barrister)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sequoia Capital LLP (London, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2014 (Case R 1457/2013-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Sequoia Capital LLP and Sequoia Capital Operations LLC.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sequoia Capital Operations LLC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case C-133/01: Action brought on 22 March 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
2.6.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 161/9
Action brought on 22 March 2001 by the Commission                        Action brought on 22 March 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                      of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                Austria                                                                   Austria
                          (Case C-132/01)
                                                                                (Case C-133/01)
                          (2001/C 161/16)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/17)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 March
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
represented by Gerald Braun, of its Legal Service, with an               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 March
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Gerard                2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Berscheid, Legal Adviser in the Legal Service of the European            represented by Gerald Braun, of its Legal Service, with an
Commission, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Gérard
                                                                         Berscheid, Legal Adviser in the Legal Service of the European
                                                                         Commission, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) declare that, by failing within the prescribed time-limit to         The applicant claims that the Court should:
      adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative
      measures necessary in order to transpose into national
      law the provisions of Council Directive 97/41/EC of                (1) declare that, by failing within the prescribed time-limit to
      25 June 1997 (1) amending Directives 76/895/EEC,                         adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative
      86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC relating to the                    measures necessary in order to transpose into national
      fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and                   law the provisions of Commission Directive 98/82/EC of
      on, respectively, fruit and vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs              27 October 1998(1) amending the Annexes to Council
      of animal origin, and certain products of plant origin,                  Directives 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC on
      including fruit and vegetables, the Republic of Austria                  the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and             and on cereals, foodstuffs of animal origin and certain
      under the said directive;                                                products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables
                                                                               respectively, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
                                                                               obligations under the EC Treaty and under the said
(2) order the defendant to pay the costs.                                      directive;
                                                                         (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
of Article 249 and of the first paragraph of Article 10 EC is
such as to oblige Member States to adopt the measures
necessary in order fully to transpose directives which are
addressed to them into their national legal order prior to the           The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
expiry of the time-limit prescribed for so doing. The time-limit         in Case C-132/01 (2); the time-limit for transposition prescribed
laid down in the first paragraph of Article 5 of the directive           by Article 5(2) of the directive expired on 30 April 1999.
expired on 31 December 1999, but Austria has not enacted
the requisite provisions.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 290, 1998, p. 25.
                                                                         (2) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
(1) OJ L 184, 1997, p. 33.


title: Case C-241/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Cluj v Niculaie Aurel Bob-Dogi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 8(1)(c) — Obligation to include in the European arrest warrant information concerning the existence of an ‘arrest warrant’ — No national arrest warrant issued prior to and separately from the European arrest warrant — Effect)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/12

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Cluj v Niculaie Aurel Bob-Dogi
   (Case C-241/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Article 8(1)(c) - Obligation to include in the European arrest warrant information concerning the existence of an ‘arrest warrant’ - No national arrest warrant issued prior to and separately from the European arrest warrant - Effect))
   (2016/C 287/15)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Cluj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Cluj

      Defendant: Niculaie Aurel Bob-Dogi

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 8(1)(c) of the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, is to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘arrest warrant’, as used in that provision, must be understood as referring to a national arrest warrant that is distinct from the European arrest warrant.

               2.

               Article 8(1)(c) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a European arrest warrant based on the existence of an ‘arrest warrant’ within the meaning of that provision does not contain any reference to the existence of a national arrest warrant, the executing judicial authority must refuse to give effect to it if, in the light of the information provided pursuant to Article 15(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, and any other information available to it, that authority concludes that the European arrest warrant is not valid because it was in fact issued in the absence of any national warrant separate from the European arrest warrant.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


title: Case C-247/00: Action brought on 21 June 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
12.8.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 233/23
—     The Court of First Instance further failed to consider the       The applicant claims that the Court should:
      question as to where the appellant maintained his family
      residence during the relevant period.
                                                                       —      Declare that, by maintaining in force the provisions
                                                                              contained in Articles 78(2) and 120(1) of the Regulations
                                                                              on Port Authorities Registration, relating to the registra-
                                                                              tion of vessels and the right to fly the Portuguese
                                                                              flag, reserving that right to Portuguese nationals, the
                                                                              Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
                                                                              Article 12 EC) and Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
                                                                              amendment, Article 43 EC);
(Divisional Court), by order of that court of 23 May 2000,
in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for
   Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Trades Union Congress                 —      Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                         (Case C-243/00)
                         (2000/C 233/43)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                                                                       It is apparent from the wording of the abovementioned articles
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional
                                                                       of the Regulamento Geral das Capitanias (General Regulation
Court) of 23 May 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                       of the Port Authorities — RGC) that the right to fly the
Registry on 19 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                       Portuguese flag is granted only to vessels of Portuguese
of The Queen against Secretary of State for Trade and Industry,
                                                                       nationality, a conditio sine qua non for registration of those
Ex parte: Trades Union Congress, on the following question:
                                                                       same vessels. Although Article 4(1) of Decreto-Lei (decree-law)
                                                                       No 214/86 repeals ‘all statutory provisions which, directly or
‘Whether Directive 96/34/EC (1) (as extended to the United             indirectly, limit or condition the right of establishment on
Kingdom by Directive 97/75/EC) (2), and the Framework                  grounds of the nationality of the investor or undertaking
Agreement of 14 December 1995 to which it gave effect,                 concerned’, since that decree-law concerns the right of
required Member States to confer the right to parental leave in        establishment in general, it does not contain any provisions
relation to children under the specified age born or adopted           relating to the granting of the right to fly the national flag.
before the date on which the Directive was given effect in the         Furthermore, the Portuguese Republic itself acknowledges that
national law of Member States or only to children born or              the provisions of the RGC at issue is inadequate, so that it is to
adopted on or after that date.’                                        be suspended pending adoption of new legislation.
(1) Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework
    agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the
    ETUC (OJ L 145, 19.06.96, p. 4).
(2) OJ L 10, 16.01.98, p. 24.
Action brought on 21 June 2000 by the Commission                       Action brought on 22 June 2000 by the Commission of
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                      the European Communities against the French Republic
                              Republic
                         (Case C-247/00)                                                        (Case C-248/00)
                         (2000/C 233/44)
                                                                                (2000/C 233/45)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 June
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities                     An action against the French Republic was brought before the
represented by Thomas Van Rijn, Legal Adviser, and Ana                 Court of Justice on 22 June 2000 by the Commission of the
Maria Alves, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an           European Communities, represented by Gerard Berscheid, of
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos              its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Kirchberg.                                                             Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.