title: Case C-149/02: Action brought on 25 April 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
C 156/6                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        29.6.2002
Action brought on 17 April 2002 by the Commission of                     therefore observed, even where the subsidy payment is taxable
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                    as part of the consideration received in return for the sale of
                            of Germany                                   the products (or the provision of the services).
                         (Case C-144/02)                                 The fact that when the products leave the processing undertak-
                                                                         ing, the subsidy is effectively paid as an advance on the total
                                                                         sale price even if there is no actual contract with the recipient
                         (2002/C 156/10)                                 of the products, does not preclude the subsidy from forming
                                                                         part of the consideration. Even though for each individual sale
                                                                         it may be impossible to calculate the exact proportion of
                                                                         the consideration constituted by the subsidy, no practical
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                    difficulties are to be expected. The taxable amount is instead
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             calculated on the basis of the consideration obtained plus the
ties on 17 April 2002 by the Commission of the European                  total subsidies received. In the Commission’s view, the fact
Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviserl,             that the majority of Member States already tax dried fodder
and Kilian Gross, of its Legal Service, with an address for              subsidies shows that no difficulties arise in practice.
service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero,
of its Legal Service, at Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg,
Luxembourg.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 63, 21.3.1995, p. 1.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1.    declare that by failing to make financial aid payable under
      Council Regulation (EC) No 603/95 (1) of 21 February
      1995 on the common organisation of the market in dried
      fodder subject to VAT (value added tax), the Federal
      Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under Article 11 of the Sixth VAT Directive (Council               Action brought on 25 April 2002 by the Commission of
      Directive 77/388/EEC) (2);                                         the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                                                                                Netherlands
2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs
      of the proceedings.                                                                        (Case C-149/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 156/11)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
In its reference to ‘subsidies directly linked to the price of such      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
[taxable] supplies’, the Community legislator intended, by               on 25 April 2002 by the Commission of the European
using such general wording, to include in the basis of                   Communities, represented by H. van Lier and M. Patakia,
assessment for VAT purposes all subsidies directly related to            acting as Agents.
the price of the goods sold or the services provided, i.e.,
subsidies which have a direct effect on the amount of
consideration received by the supplier. There must be a                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
direct, causal relationship, which is precisely quantified or
quantifiable, between those subsidies and the supply of the
goods or services: the subsidy is granted where and to the               1.    Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
extent that those goods (or services) are, in fact, sold on the                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
market. The subsidy granted per tonne of dried fodder pursuant                 comply with Directive 98/5/EC (1) of the European Parlia-
to Directive 603/95 has such a direct, causal effect on the sale               ment and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate
price of dried fodder. The processing undertakings can sell the                practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent
dried fodder at the world market price, which is less than the                 basis in a Member State other than that in which the
price they would have to charge on the basis of their costs,                   qualification was obtained, or in any event by failing to
only because they are in receipt of the relevant subsidies. The                inform the Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom
fact that the level of the subsidy is not adjusted to take account             of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under
of fluctuations in the world market price, does not alter the                  that directive;
fact that the subsidy acts as a price supplement. The spirit and
the purpose of Article 11(A)1(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive is           2.    Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 29.6.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 156/7
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         4.    Is it in breach of Directive 93/104/EC for a rule of
                                                                              national law to permit a collective agreement or a works
                                                                              agreement based on a collective agreement to allow rest
                                                                              periods, where time is spent on call and stand-by, to be
The period for implementation of the directive expired on                     adapted to the special circumstances of such duties,
14 March 2000.                                                                including in particular reductions in rest periods as a
                                                                              result of work actually being carried out, with these
                                                                              periods of duty being compensated for at other times?
(1) OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 307, p. 18.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeits-
gericht Schleswig-Holstein by order of that Court of
25 March 2002 in the case of Landeshauptstadt Kiel
                against Dr. med. Norbert Jaeger
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
                                                                        hof by order of that Court of 21 March 2002 in the
                                                                        case of Terra Baubedarf-Handel GmbH against Finanzamt
                         (Case C-151/02)                                                     Osterholz-Scharmbeck
                         (2002/C 156/12)                                                        (Case C-152/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 156/13)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landesarbeitsgericht
Schleswig-Holstein (Schleswig-Holstein Higher Labour Court)
of 25 March 2002, received at the Court Registry on 26 April
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Landeshauptstadt
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
Kiel against Dr. med. Norbert Jaeger on the following questions:
                                                                        (Federal Finance Court) of 21 March 2002, received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 26 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
1.    Does time spent on call by an employee in a hospital, in          the case of Terra Baubedarf-Handel GmbH against Finanzamt
      general, constitute working time within the meaning of            Osterholz-Scharmbeck on the following question:
      Article 2(1) of Directive 93/104/EC (1) even where the
      employee is permitted to sleep at times when he is not
      required to work?                                                 Can a taxable person exercise his right to deduct only in
                                                                        respect of the calendar year in which he holds an invoice
                                                                        pursuant to Article 18(1)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) or
2.    Is it in breach of Article 3 of Directive 93/104/EC for a         must the right to deduct always be exercised (even if retrospec-
      rule of national law to classify time spent on call as a rest     tively) in respect of the calendar year in which the right to
      period unless work is actually carried out, where the             deduct pursuant to Article 17(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC
      employee stays in a room provided in a hospital and               arose?
      works as and when required to do so?
3.    Is it in breach of Directive 93/104/EC for a rule of
      national law to permit a reduction in the daily rest period
      of 11 hours in hospitals and other establishments for the         (1) OJ L 145, p. 1.
      treatment, care and supervision of persons, where the
      amount of time actually worked during time spent on
      call or stand-by, not exceeding one half of the rest period,
      is compensated for at other times?


title: Case T-533/15: Action brought on 11 September 2015 — Korea National Insurance Corporation Zweigniederlassung Deutschland a.o. v Council and Commission

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/49

         Action brought on 11 September 2015 — Korea National Insurance Corporation Zweigniederlassung Deutschland a.o. v Council and Commission
   (Case T-533/15)
   (2015/C 381/60)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Korea National Insurance Corporation Zweigniederlassung Deutschland (Hamburg, Germany), Kim Il Su (Pyongyang, République de Corée), Kang Song Sam (Hamburg), Choe Chun Sik (Pyongyang), Sin Kyu Nam (Pyongyang), Pak Chun San (Pyongyang), So Tong Myong (Pyongyang) (represented by: M. Lester and S. Midwinter, Barristers, T. Brentnall and A. Stevenson, Solicitors)

      Defendants: European Commission and Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1066 of 2 July 2015 amending Decision 2013/183/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ L 174, p. 25) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1062 of 2 July 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ L 174, p. 16) in so far as those measures purport to include them in Annex V;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendants have failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicants.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendants have manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the applicants’ case, there is no factual basis for their inclusion.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendants have breached data protection principles.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of its property, business and reputation.


title: Case C-649/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Versailles (France) lodged on 6 December 2013 — Works Council of Nortel Networks SA and Others v Me Rogeau, Liquidator of Nortel Networks SA, Alan Robert Bloom and Others

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Versailles (France) lodged on 6 December 2013 — Works Council of Nortel Networks SA and Others v Me Rogeau, Liquidator of Nortel Networks SA, Alan Robert Bloom and Others
   (Case C-649/13)
   2014/C 39/23
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de commerce de Versailles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Works Council of Nortel Networks SA and Others

      Defendants: Me Rogeau, Liquidator of Nortel Networks SA, Alan Robert Bloom and Others

      Question referred

   Do the courts of the State in which secondary proceedings have been opened have exclusive jurisdiction over or concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of the State in which the main proceedings have been opened, to rule on the determination of the debtor’s assets falling with the scope of the effects of the secondary proceedings in accordance with Articles 2(g), 3(2) and 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (1) and, in the event that there is exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction, is the applicable law that of the main proceedings or of the secondary proceedings?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1.


title: Case T-524/12: Action brought on 3 December 2012 — Recaro v OHIM — Certino Mode (RECARO)

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/23

         Action brought on 3 December 2012 — Recaro v OHIM — Certino Mode (RECARO)
   (Case T-524/12)
   2013/C 32/37
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH (Kaiserslautern, Germany) (represented by: J. Weiser, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Certino Mode, SL (Elche, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Alter the contested decision so that the appeal brought by the intervener is rejected and CTM No 734343 ‘RECARO’ is revoked in its entirety;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2012 in case R 1761/2011-1; and

               —

               Order OHIM and, as the case may be, the intervener to pay the costs for these proceedings and of the appeal procedure before OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘RECARO’, for goods in classes 10 and 25 — Community trade mark registration No 734343

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 15 of Council Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 50(1) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95; and

               —

               Infringement of Article 75(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-112/08: Order of the President of the Court of 13 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/34

         Order of the President of the Court of 13 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-112/08) (1)

   2009/C 141/62

      Language of the case: Spanish

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.


title: Action brought on 4 April 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-116/95)

text:
No C 159/ 10              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24 . 6 . 95
6 . In view of the fact that it follows from the established                The applicant claims that the Court should :
     case-law of the Court of Justice that the repayment of
     duties levied in breach of Community law must have                     1 , declare that by failing to adopt by law, regulation or
     regard to the substantive and formal requirements laid                     administrative action within the prescribed time limit
     down in national legislation, and that the Court of                        the necessary provisions to comply with Council
     Justice held at paragraph 12 of its judgment in Case                       Directive 92/48/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the
      1 99/82 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v . San
                                                                                minimum hygiene rules applicable to fishery products
      Giorgio of 9 November 1983 ( 4 ) that entitlement to the                  caught on board certain vessels in accordance with
     repayment of charges levied by a Member State contrary                     Article 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) (i ) of Directive 91/493/EEC O , the
      to the rules of Community law is a consequence of, and                    Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      an adjunct to, the rights conferred on individuals by the                 the EC Treaty;
      Community provisions prohibiting charges having an
      effect equivalent to customs duties or, as the case may
      be, the discriminatory application of internal taxes, the             2 , order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
      following question arises :
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      must the case-law of the Court of Justice be understood
      as meaning that Community law contains an                             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
      unconditional obligation to repay duties which,                       C-79/95 ; the time limit for implementation expired on
      according to the replies to Questions 1 to 4 , may be                 1 January 1993 .
      contrary to Community law, but that this obligation is
      such that the detailed conditions for the actual
                                                                            (!) OJ No L 187, 7. 7. 1992 , p . 41 .
      processing of the claim for repayment are subject, within
      certain limits laid down in the case-law of the Court of
      Justice, to relevant national legislation ?
7. If it is held that the 40 % surcharge on the general goods
      duty is contrary to Community law, including
      ( free-trade ) agreements entered into, it is compatible              Action brought on 4 April 1995 by the Commission of the
      with Community law that a limitation period laid down                     European Communities against the Italian Republic
      in national law for repayment claims runs from an                                              ( Case C-117/95 )
      earlier point in time than that from which the Member
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/21 )
      State in question discontinued the duty which was
      contrary to Community law ?
                                                                            An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
(M   OJ No    L 172 , 22 . 7 . 1968 , p . 1 .
                                                                            4 April 1995 by the Commission of the European
(2 ) OJ No    L 256 , 7 . 9 . 1987, p . 1 .
(')  OJ No    L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1986 , p . 1 .
                                                                            Communities, represented by Eugenio de March, Legal
(4 ) [ 1983 ] ECR, p . 3595 .                                               Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                            Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, Wagner
                                                                            Centre, Kirchberg .
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                            1 , declare that by failing to adopt by law, regulation or
                                                                                administrative action within the prescribed time limits
                                                                                the necessary provisions to comply with Council
                                                                                Directive 92/35/EEC of 29 April 1992 laying down
Action brought on 4 April 1995 by the Commission of the                          control rules and measures to combat African horse
     European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                sickness (*) and Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May
                             ( Case C- 1 16/95 )                                 1992 introducing Community measures for the control
                               ( 95/C 159/20 )                                   of avian influenza ( 2 ) the Italian Republic has failed to
                                                                                fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                   2 , order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
4 April 1995 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Eugenio de March, Legal                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, Wagner                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
Centre, Kirchberg .                                                         C-79/95 ; the time limits for implementation expired on


title: Case C-647/11 P: Order of the Court of 29 November 2012 — Dimos Peramatos v European Commission (Appeal — Funding granted to a project in the environmental field — ‘LIFE’ — Decision for partial recovery of the amount paid — Determination of the obligations on the recipient — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state reasons — Errors of law)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/6

         Order of the Court of 29 November 2012 — Dimos Peramatos v European Commission
   (Case C-647/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Funding granted to a project in the environmental field - ‘LIFE’ - Decision for partial recovery of the amount paid - Determination of the obligations on the recipient - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state reasons - Errors of law)
   2013/C 108/10
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Dimos Peramatos (represented by: G. Gerapetritis, Δικηγόρος)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, Agents, assisted by A. Somou, Δικηγόρος)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-312/07 Dimos Peramatos v Commission dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission decision of 7 December 2005, served on the appellant by bailiff on 17 May 2007, seeking recovery of sums paid in implementation of Commission Decision C/1997/29 final of 17 July 1997 relating to a project falling within the framework of a reforestation programme or, in the alternative, for amendment of the contested decision

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The Dimos Peramatos is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.


title: Case C-297/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Catania — 4th Civil Section by order of 12 July 2001 in joined civil actions (1) Sicilcassa SpA v IRA Costruzioni SpA and Others, and (2) Aiello Elena v IRA Costruzioni and Others

text:
27.10.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 303/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                  1.    May nationals of a Member State of the European
Catania — 4th Civil Section by order of 12 July 2001 in                       Union rely on free movement of capital for a domestic
joined civil actions (1) Sicilcassa SpA v IRA Costruzioni                     transaction if national law lays down a prohibition of
SpA and Others, and (2) Aiello Elena v IRA Costruzioni                        discrimination against that country’s own nationals but
                            and Others                                        does not expressly guarantee citizens of the Union free
                                                                              movement of capital in the national legislation?
                         (Case C-297/01)
                                                                        2.    Is it compatible with free movement of capital for
                         (2001/C 303/09)                                      authorisation by the land transfer authority, which has
                                                                              constitutive effect, to be required for the acquisition of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        building land which has not been built on?
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale (District
Court) Catania — 4th Civil Section — by order of that court
of 12 July 2001, which was received at the Court Registry on            3.    What effect does the standstill clause in point 1(e) of
26 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the joined civil                    Annex XII to the EEA Agreement have on wholly new
actions (1) Sicilcassa SpA v IRA Costruzioni SpA and Others                   kinds of situations requiring authorisation under land
and (2) Aiello Elena v IRA Costruzioni and Others on the                      transfer law, not created until after signature of the EEA
following questions:                                                          Agreement on 2 May 1992?
1.    On an interpretation of Article 87 et seq. EC may
      transitional rules, such as those laid down in Article 106
      of Legislative Decree No 270/99, constitute new State aid
      and come within the scope of the prohibition under
      Article 87 EC?
If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative,
2.    In light of the considerations set out in the grounds
      hereof can the transitional rules under examination come
      within the provision in Article 87(3)(b) of the EC Treaty?        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
                                                                        richt Düsseldorf by order of that court of 11 July 2001 in
If the answer to Question 2 is negative,                                case of 1. AOK Bundesverband, 2. Bundesverband der
                                                                        Betriebskrankenkassen, 3. Bundesverband der Innungs-
3.    In light of the general principles of Community law and           krankenkassen, 4. Bundesverband der landwirtschaftli-
      in particular those mentioned in the grounds hereof, can          chen Krankenkassen, 5. Verband der Angestellten-
      the transitional rules under examination be deemed                krankenkassen e.V., Siegburg, 6. Verband der Arbeiter-
      compatible with the EC Treaty and the Community legal             Ersatzkassen, 7. Bundesknappschaft, 8. See-Krankenkasse
      order?                                                                               gegen Mundipharma Gmbh
                                                                                (Case C-306/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 303/11)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
Feldkirch by order of that court of 14 June 2001 in the
land register proceedings brought by Doris Salzmann née
                               Greif                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
                         (Case C-300/01)                                (Higher Regional Court) Düsseldorf of 11 July 2001 received
                                                                        at the Court Registry on 6 August 2001, for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling on the same questions as referred to the Court in Case
                         (2001/C 303/10)                                C-264/01 (1).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht
Feldkirch (Regional Court, Feldkirch), Austria, of 14 June              (1) See page 5 of this Official Journal.
2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 June
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the land register proceedings
brought by Doris Salzmann née Greif on the following
questions:


title: Case T-391/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Aldi v EUIPO — Cantina Tollo (ALDIANO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ALDIANO — Earlier EU word mark ALDI — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 22(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Aldi v EUIPO — Cantina Tollo (ALDIANO)
   (Case T-391/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ALDIANO - Earlier EU word mark ALDI - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 22(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
   (2017/C 038/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Cantina Tollo SCA (Tollo, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica and F. Fischetti, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2015 (Case R 1612/2014-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Aldi and Cantina Tollo.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Aldi GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Case C-212/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'arbitrage de Belgique lodged on  10 May 2006  — Government of the French Community, Walloon Government v Flemish Government

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'arbitrage de Belgique lodged on 10 May 2006 — Government of the French Community, Walloon Government v Flemish Government
   (Case C-212/06)
   (2006/C 178/29)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'arbitrage de Belgique (Belgium)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Government of the French Community, Walloon Government

      Defendant: Flemish Government
   Question(s) referred

               1.

               Does a care insurance scheme — which (a) has been established by an autonomous Community of a federal Member State of the European Community, (b) applies to persons who are resident in the part of the territory of that federal State for which that autonomous Community is competent, (c) provides for reimbursement, under that scheme, of the costs incurred for non-medical assistance and services to persons with serious, long-term reduced autonomy, affiliated to the scheme, in the form of a fixed contribution to the related costs and (d) is financed by members' annual contributions and by a grant paid out of the budget for expenditure of the autonomous Community concerned — constitute a scheme falling within the scope ratione materiae of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (1), as defined in Article 4 thereof?

               2.

               If the first question referred for a preliminary ruling is to be answered in the affirmative: must the regulation cited above, in particular Articles 2, 3 and 13 thereof and, in so far as they are applicable, Articles 18, 19, 20, 25 and 28 be interpreted as precluding an autonomous Community of a federal Member State of the European Community from adopting provisions which, in the exercise of its powers, allow only persons residing in the territory for which that autonomous Community is competent and, in relation to citizens of the European Union, persons employed in the territory and who are resident in another Member State to be insured under and covered by a social security scheme within the meaning of that regulation, to the exclusion of persons, whatever their nationality, who reside in a part of the territory of the federal State for which another autonomous Community is competent?

               3.

               Must Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC be interpreted as precluding an autonomous Community of a federal Member State of the European Community from adopting provisions which, in the exercise of its powers, allow only persons residing in the territory for which that autonomous Community is competent and, in relation to citizens of the European Union, persons employed in that territory and who are resident in another Member State to be insured under and covered by a social security scheme within the meaning of that regulation, to the exclusion of persons, whatever their nationality, who reside in a part of the territory of the federal State for which another autonomous Community is competent?

               4.

               Must Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC be interpreted as not permitting the scope of such a system to be limited to persons who are resident in the territorial components of a federal Member State of the European Community which are covered by that system?

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


title: Case T-308/08: Action brought on 5 August 2008 — Parfums Christian Dior v OHIM — Consolidated Artists (MANGO adorably)

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/15

         Action brought on 5 August 2008 — Parfums Christian Dior v OHIM — Consolidated Artists (MANGO adorably)
   (Case T-308/08)
   (2008/C 260/28)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Parfums Christian Dior SA (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Cornu, D. Moreau and F. de Visscher, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consolidated Artists B.V. (Rotterdam, The Netherlands)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 May 2008 in case R 1162/2007-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘MANGO adorably’ for goods in class 3

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

      Mark or sign cited: French trade mark registration No 33 209 849 of the word mark ‘ADIORABLE’ for goods in class 3; French trade mark registration No 94 536 564 of the word mark ‘J'ADORE’ for various goods, amongst which goods in class 3; international trade mark registration No 811 001 of the word mark ‘ADIORABLE’ for various goods, amongst which goods in class 3; international trade mark registration No 687 422 of the word mark ‘J'ADORE’ for various goods, amongst which goods in class 3

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned and that the use of the trade mark applied for would not take unfair advantage of the reputation of earlier trade marks, on the wrong reasoning that under both legal grounds the trade marks concerned are not sufficiently similar.


title: Case T -287/01: Order of the Court of First Instance of  20 March 2006  — Bioelettrica v Commission

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/18

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 March 2006 — Bioelettrica v Commission
   (Case T -287/01) (1)

   (2006/C 121/32)

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 2.2.2002.


13.10.2001            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 289/19
       Removal from the register of Case C-433/99 (1)               ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, (Austria): Margrith
                                                                    Petersilge, née Lackner v Sozialversicherungsanstalt der ge-
                         (2001/C 289/37)                            werblichen Wirtschaft.
By order of 1 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice       (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-433/99: (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Commissione Tributaria regionale di primo
grado di Trento): Panarotta 2002 Srl v Ufficio delle Imposte
Dirette di Trento.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                                    Removal from the register of Case C-4/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/41)
                                                                    By order of 21 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                    of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
       Removal from the register of Case C-434/99 (1)               the register of Case C-4/00: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v French Republic.
                         (2001/C 289/38)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
By order of 1 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-434/99: (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di primo
grado di Trento): NTB SpA v Ufficio delle Imposte Dirette di
Trento.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-82/00 (1)
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
                                                                                (2001/C 289/42)
                                                                    By order of 30 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                    of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-82/00: Commission of the European
       Removal from the register of Case C-501/99 (1)               Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
                         (2001/C 289/39)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
By order of 11 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-501/99: Commission of the European
Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-130/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/43)
                                                                    By order of 5 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice of
                                                                    the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
       Removal from the register of Case   C-511/99 (1)
                                                                    register of Case C-130/00: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
                         (2001/C 289/40)
By order of 25 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice      (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-511/99: (reference for a preliminary


title: Case T-209/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  14 December 2005  — Honeywell International Inc. v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Competition — Commission decision declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Ineffectiveness of a partial challenge to the decision — Aeronautical markets — Action that cannot lead to annulment of the decision)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/26

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 — Honeywell International Inc. v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-209/01) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Competition - Commission decision declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Ineffectiveness of a partial challenge to the decision - Aeronautical markets - Action that cannot lead to annulment of the decision)
   (2006/C 48/48)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Honeywell International Inc. (Morristown, New Jersey (United States)) (represented by: K. Lasok QC and F. Depoortere, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, P. Hellström and F. Siredey-Garnier, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Rolls-Royce plc (London, United Kingdom, represented by A. Renshaw, Solicitor) and Rockwell Collins, Inc. (Cedar Rapids, Iowa, United States, represented by T. Soames, J. Davies, A. Ryan, Solicitors, and P. Camesasca, lawyer)
   Application for
   the annulment of Commission Decision 2004/134/EC of 3 July 2001 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.2220 — General Electric/Honeywell) (OJ 2004 L 48, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the application;

               2)

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission and by the interveners.

      (1)  OJ C 331 of 24. 11. 2001.


title: Case C-231/13 P: Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Hotel Concordia Srl, formerly Hotel Concordia Snc, against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/17

         Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Hotel Concordia Srl, formerly Hotel Concordia Snc, against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission
   (Case C-231/13 P)
   2013/C 207/29
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Hotel Concordia Srl, formerly Hotel Concordia Snc (represented by: A. Bianchini and F. Busetto, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order of the General Court under appeal

               —

               Uphold the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly,

                           —

                           annul, in so far as is reasonable and in so far as it concerns the appellant, European Commission Decision No 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995;

                           —

                           in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as it imposes an obligation to recover the relief granted and in so far as it requires interest to be added to the amount of relief to be recovered for the periods taken into consideration in the judgment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant raises nine grounds of appeal:

                  First ground: the General Court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the measures in question did not confer any advantage upon their beneficiaries given their compensatory nature.

                  Second ground: the Court erred in not excluding, or at least assessing, the likelihood that the measures in question would affect competition and intra-Community trade.

                  Third ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(2)(b) EC (now Article 107(2)(b) TFEU) and Article 87(3)(b) EC (now Article 107(3)(b) TFEU) were inapplicable.

                  Fourth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 87(3)(c) EC (now Article 107(3)(c) TFEU) was inapplicable.

                  Fifth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(3)(d) and (e) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) and (e) TFEU) were inapplicable.

                  Sixth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 86(2) EC (now Article 106(2) TFEU) was inapplicable.

                  Seventh ground: the Court erred in not recognising the existence of the aid, thus infringing Article 88(3) EC (now Article 108(3) TFEU) and Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1)

                  Eighth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the recovery order.

                  Ninth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the addition of interest.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 1996 in Joined Cases C-283/94, C-291/94 and C-292/94 (references for preliminary rulings made by the Finanzgericht Köln): Denkavit Internationaal BV (C-283/94), Vitic Amsterdam BV (C-291/94) and Voormeer BV (C-292/94) v. Bundesamt für Finanzen (Harmonization of tax legislation - Taxation of company profits - Parent companies and subsidiaries)

text:
  11 . 1 . 97          1 EN 1                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 9/ 1
                                                                       I
                                                                 (Information)
                                                   COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    administrative functions from a municipality to an
                         of 15 October 1996                                administrative collectivity such as the one in question in
                                                                           the main proceedings.
in Case C-298/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arbeitsgericht Halberstadt): Annette Henke v.                          0 ) OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12. 1994. p. 10.
Gemeinde           Schierke      and      Verwaltungsgemeinschaft          (2 ) OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p. 26 .
                             'Brocken' (M
 (Safeguarding of employees ' rights in the event of transfers
 of undertakings — Transfer of certain administrative
functions of a municipality to a body created for that
                 purpose by several municipalities)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                              ( 97/C 9/01 )
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                                    of 17 October 1996
                                                                          in Joined Cases C-283/94, C-291/94 and C-292/94
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            (references for preliminary rulings made by the
             published in the European Court Reports)                     Finanzgericht Köln): Denkavit Internationaal BV ( C-283/
                                                                          94 ), Vitic Amsterdam BV ( C-291/94 ) and Voormeer BV
In Case C-298/94 : reference to the Court pursuant to                                ( C-292/94 ) v. Bundesamt für Finanzen C1 )
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Arbeitsgericht                       (Harmonization of tax legislation — Taxation of company
( Labour Court) Halberstadt ( Germany) for a preliminary                           profits — Parent companies and subsidiaries)
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between        Annette     Henke       and   Gemeinde      Schierke,                                     .97/C 9/02 )
Verwaltungsgemeinschaft             ' Brocken'    —       on     the
interpretation of Article 1 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 77/187/                            (Language of the case: German)
EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,                        published in the European Court Reports)
businesses or parts of businesses (2 ) — the Court,
composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F.                   In Joined Cases C-283/94, C-291 /94 and C-292/94:
Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and J. L. Murray                       references to the Court pursuant to Article 177 of the EC
( Presidents of Chambers ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, D. A. O.                    Treaty by the Finanzgericht Köln (Finance Court,
Edward, J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), G. Hirsch and H.                Cologne, Germany ) for preliminary rulings in the
Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; H. A.                   proceedings pending before that court between Denkavit
Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given               Internationaal BV ( C-283/94 ), Vitic Amsterdam BV (C
a judgment on 15 October 1996, in which it has ruled:                     291 /94 ) and Voormeer BV ( C-292/94 ) and the Bundesamt
                                                                          für Finanzen — on the interpretation of Articles 3 and 5
Article 1 (1 ) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of                         of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the
14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the                  common system of taxation applicable in the case of
Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees '                 parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member
rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses              States (2 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: J. C.
or parts of businesses must be interpreted as meaning that                Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón,
the concept of a 'transfer of an undertaking, business or                 D. A. O. Edward, P. Jan ( Rapporteur ) and M. Wathelet,
part of a business ' does not apply to the transfer of                    Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 9/2             I EN 1                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11 . 1 . 97
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                Industrie-Beteiligungen GmbH (represented by Gerhard
17 October 1996, the operative part of which is as                       Wiedemann ) and Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG ( represented
follows :                                                                by Hans-Jürgen Rabe ) v. Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities ( Agents : Ben Smulders and Jürgen
1 . A Member State may not make grant of the tax                         Grunwald ) — application for annulment of Commission
     advantage provided for in Article 5 (1 ) of Council                 Decision 93/412/EEC of 6 April 1993 concerning aid
     Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common                  awarded by the German Government to Hibeg and by
     system of taxation applicable in the case of parent                 Hibeg via Krupp GmbH to Bremer Vulkan AG,
     companies and subsidiaries of different Member States               facilitating the sale of Krupp Atlas Elektronik GmbH from
     subject to the condition that, at the moment when                   Krupp GmbH to Bremer Vulkan AG (2 ) — the Court
     profits are distributed, the parent company must have               ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
     held a minimum of 25 % of the capital of the                        of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur) and P. J. G.
     subsidiary for a period at least equal to that set by               Kapteyn, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. A.
     that Member State pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the                  Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
     Directive. It is for the Member States to draw up rules             a judgment on 24 October 1996, in which it:
     for ensuring compliance with this minimum period, in
     accordance with the procedures laid down in their
     domestic law. Those States are not obliged under the                1 . Annuls Commission Decision 93/412/EEC of 6 April
     Directive to grant the advantage immediately, on the                      1993 concerning aid awarded by the German
     basis of a unilateral undertaking by the parent                           Government to Hibeg and by Hibeg via Krupp GmbH
     company to observe the minimum holding period.                           to Bremer Vulkan AG, facilitating the sale of Krupp
                                                                              Atlas Elektronik GmbH from Krupp GmbH to
2 . Where a Member State has exercised the option                              Bremer Vulkan AG;
     provided for in Article 3 (2) of the Directive, parent
     companies may rely directly on the rights conferred by
     Article 5 (1 ) and (3) of the Directive before national
                                                                         2 . Orders the Commission of the European Communities
     courts, if those companies observe the holding period
                                                                               to pay the costs.
     set by that Member State.
3 . Community law does not require a Member State                        (M OJ No C 222, 18 . 8 . 1993 , p . 8 and OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 .
     which, when transposing the Directive, stipulated that                   1995 , p. 9 .
     the minimum holding period set pursuant to                          (2 ) OJ No L 185 , 28 . 7 . 1993 , p . 43 .
     Article 3 (2) must be completed at the time when the
     profits that are the subject of the tax advantage
     afforded by Article 5 are distributed to compensate
     the parent company for damage which it may have
     incurred by reason of the error thus made.
0 ) OJ No C 351 , 10. 12 . 1994 , pp . 8 and 10 .                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(2 ) OJ No L 225 , 20 . 8 . 1990, p . 6 .
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 24 October 1996
                                                                         in Case C-435/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                         the Rotterdam Kantongerecht): Francina Johanna Maria
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                Dietz v. Stichting Thuiszorg Rotterdam (' )
                           ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                          (Equal pay for men and women — Right to join an
                        of 24 October 1996
                                                                         occupational pension scheme — Right to payment of a
in Joined Cases C-329/93 , C-62/95 and C-63/95 : Federal                             retirement pension — Part-time workers)
Republic of Germany and Others v. Commission of the
                   European Communities 0 )                                                            ( 97/C 9/04 )
(State aid — Guarantee given by the public authorities in
favour indirectly of a shipbuilding undertaking for the                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
acquisition of an undertaking in another sector —
Diversification of the activities of the recipient
                    undertaking — Recovery)
                               ( 97/C 9/03 )
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: German)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           In Case C-435/93 : reference to the Court pursuant to
          published in the European Court Reports)                       Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Rotterdam
                                                                         Kantongerecht ( Cantonal Court) (Netherlands ), for a
In Joined Cases C-329/93, C-62/95 and C-63/95 : Federal                  preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Republic of Germany ( Agent: Ernst Röder ), Hanseatische                 court between Francina Johanna Maria Dietz and


title: Case F-92/14: Action brought on 10 September 2014  — ZZ v European Parliament

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/40

         Action brought on 10 September 2014 — ZZ v European Parliament
   (Case F-92/14)
   (2014/C 448/50)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: Günther Maximini, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application, first, to annul the Parliament's decision in which the Parliament refused to take a preventative approach to the harm which the plaintiff has suffered due to infringements of his personal rights and of the provisions of Regulation No 45/2011 in the context of the treatment of a previous case, and, secondly, to award non-financial damages with interest for late payment for the non-financial harm which he allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the European Parliament’s decision of 5 March 2014 which rejected the applicant’s application of 16 December 2013 for damages, as well as the implied rejection of his complaint of 24 March 2014 against that decision, and, in the alternative, the subsequent decision of 29 July 2014 by an unknown author;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 30  000 for non-financial damages, together with interest for late payment at the rate of five percentage points above the base rate on EUR 25  000 from 1 February 2014 and on EUR 5  000 from 1 May 2014;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the pre-litigation procedure and all necessary expenses and costs incurred by the applicant.


title: Case C-287/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2006 — Deutsche Post AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Third party: Marketing Service Magdeburg GmbH

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2006 — Deutsche Post AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Third party: Marketing Service Magdeburg GmbH
   (Case C-287/06)
   (2006/C 261/11)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Köln
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deutsche Post AG

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Third party: Marketing Service Magdeburg GmbH
   Question referred
   Is Article 47(2), in conjunction with Article 95 EC, the fifth indent of Article 12, and Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC, in the version as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), to be interpreted as meaning that, where a universal service provider applies special tariffs for business customers who give postal items to the sorting office pre-sorted for the postal network, that universal service provider is obliged to apply those special tariffs also to undertakings which collect postal items from the sender and give them pre-sorted for the postal network at the same access point and on the same terms and conditions as business customers, without the universal service provider being permitted to refuse to do so, having regard to its obligation to provide a universal service?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 176, p. 21.


title: Designation of Presidents of Chambers and assignment of Judges to Chambers

text:
C 184/32              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          2.8.2003
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Designation of Presidents of Chambers and assignment of                        to the Fifth Chamber:
                      Judges to Chambers
                                                                               Ms Lindh, (President of Chamber), Mr García-Valdecasas
                         (2003/C 184/74)                                       and Mr Cooke, Judges;
                                                                               to the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition:
At its meeting on 2 July 2003, the Court of First Instance
decided, pursuant to Articles 10 and 15 of the Rules of                        Ms Lindh, (President of Chamber, Mr García-Valdecasas,
Procedure of the Court of First Instance and to the transitional               Mr Cooke, Mr Mengozzi et Ms Martins Ribeiro, Judges.
provision laid down in Article 2 of the amendment to its
Rules of Procedure adopted on 21 May 2003, for the period
                                                                         Where the Judge-Rapporteur is assigned to another Chamber
between 1 October 2003 and 31 August 2004:
                                                                         of three judges as a result of the amendment of the composi-
                                                                         tion of the Chambers, shall be reassigned, with effect from
a.   to designate as Presidents of Chamber:
                                                                         1 October 2003, to the Chamber to which the Judge Rappor-
     —     Judge Pirrung                                                 teur belongs after that date.
     —     Judge Azizi                                                   For cases in which the written procedure was completed and a
     —     Judge Legal                                                   hearing in the oral procedure was held or fixed before
                                                                         1 October 2003, the Chamber shall continue to sit with the
     —     Judge Lindh                                                   same composition as before for the oral procedure, the delib-
                                                                         eration and the judgment.
b.   to assign the Members of the Court of First Instance to
     the Chambers as follows:
     to the First Chamber:
                                                                         Composition of the Grand Chamber
     Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Mengozzi and Ms Martins
     Ribeiro, Judges;                                                    At its full meeting on 2 July 2003 the Court of First Instance
                                                                         decided, in accordance with Article 10(1) of its Rules of
     to the First Chamber, Extended Composition:                         Procedure as amended on 21 May 2003, that:
     Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Lenaerts, Mr Jaeger,
     Mr Mengozzi and Ms Martins Ribeiro, Judges;                         —     for the period 1 August to 30 September 2003 the
                                                                               Grand Chamber should be composed of President Vester-
     to the Second Chamber:                                                    dorf, Judges García-Valdecasas, Lenaerts, Tiili and
                                                                               Forwood, Presidents of Chambers, the four Judges of the
     Mr Pirrung, (President of Chamber), Mr Meij and                           Extended Composition Chamber who would have had to
     Mr Forwood, Judges;                                                       hear the case in question if it had been assigned to a
                                                                               Chamber composed of five Judges and of two other
     to the Second Chamber, Extended Composition:                              Judges nominated by the President of the Court of First
                                                                               Instance in turn from among the Judges of the other
     Mr Pirrung, (President of Chamber), Ms Tiili, Mr Meij,                    Chamber in order of their seniority in office under
     Mr Vilaras and Mr Forwood, Judges;                                        Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure;
     to the Third Chamber:
                                                                         —     for the period 1 October 2003 to 31 August 2004, the
     Mr Azizi, (President of Chamber, Mr Lenaerts and                          Grand Chamber shall be composed of President Vester-
     Mr Jaeger, Judges;                                                        dorf, Judges Lindh, Azizi, Pirrung and Legal, Presidents of
                                                                               Chambers, the four Judges of the Extended Composition
     to the Third Chamber, Extended Composition:                               Chamber who would have had to hear the case in
                                                                               question if it had been assigned to a Chamber composed
     Mr Azizi, (President of Chamber), Mr García-Valdecasas,                   of five Judges and of two other Judges nominated by the
     Mr Lenaerts, Mr Cooke and Mr Jaeger, Judges;                              President of the Court of First Instance in turn from
                                                                               among the Judges of the other Chamber in order of their
     to the Fourth Chamber:                                                    seniority in office under Article 6 of the Rules of Proce-
                                                                               dure;
     Mr Legal, (President of Chamber), Ms Tiili and Mr Vilaras,
     Judges;
                                                                         With regard to cases in which the written procedure was
     to the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition:                        completed and a hearing for the oral procedure held or fixed
                                                                         before the Grand Chamber before 1 October 2003, the Grand
     Mr Legal, (President of Chamber), Ms Tiili, Mr Meij,                Chamber shall continue to sit in its previous composition for
     Mr Vilaras and Mr Forwood, Judges;                                  the oral procedure, the deliberations and the judgment.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.8.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 184/33
Plenary session                                                          In connection with those various orders, the First Chamber,
                                                                         presided over by the President of the Court of First Instance,
At its meeting on 2 July 2003, the Court of First Instance               shall not be taken into consideration at each third turn.
decided pursuant to the second sub-paragraph of Article 32(1)
of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that
where, following the designation of an Advocate General                  The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate from
pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of Procedure, there is an            that order on the ground that cases are related or with a view
even number of Judges in the Court of First Instance sitting in          to ensuring an even spread of the workload.
plenary session, the rota established in advance in accordance
with which the President of the Court is to designate the Judge
who will not take part in the judgment of the case shall be in
reverse order to that in which the Judges rank according to
their seniority in office under Article 6 of the Rules of
Procedure unless the Judge who would thus be designated is
the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it shall be the judge
ranking immediately above him who shall be designated.
Designation of the Judge replacing the President of the
Court of First Instance as the Judge hearing an application                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
for interim measures
At its meeting on 2 July 2003, the Court of First Instance                                          of 4 June 2003
decided in accordance with Article 106 of its Rules of Proce-
dure, as amended on 21 May 2003, that where the President is
absent or prevented from sitting to hear an application for
                                                                         in Joined Cases T-124/01 and T-320/01 Pietro Del Vaglio v
interim measures, to designate to replace him:
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
—     for the period 1 August to 30 September 2003, Judge
      García-Valdecasas, or if he is absent or prevented from
      sitting, Judge Lenaerts, Judge Tiili or Judge Forwood, in          (Officials — Weighting — Pension — Definition of resi-
      that order;                                                                 dence — Burden of proof — United Kingdom)
—     for the period 1 October 2003 to 31 August 2004, Judge
      García-Valdecasas, or if he is absent or prevented from
      sitting, Judge Lenaerts.                                                                      (2003/C 184/75)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Criteria for assigning cases to the Chambers
At its meeting on 2 July 2003, the Court of First Instance
established the following criteria for the assignment of cases to
the Chambers for the period between 1 October 2003 and                   In Joined Cases T-124/01 and T-320/01: Pietro Del Vaglio, a
31August 2004 pursuant to Article 12 of the Rules of Proce-              former official of the Commission of the European Commu-
dure:                                                                    nities, residing in London, represented by G. Vandersanden and
                                                                         L. Levi, lawyers, against the Commission of the European
1.    Cases shall be assigned, with effect from the lodging of           Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application for the annul-
      the application and without prejudice to any subsequent            ment of the Commission's decisions of 5 April 2000 and
      application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Proce-           6 September 2001 refusing to apply the United Kingdom
      dure, to Chambers of three Judges...                               weighting to the applicant's pension from, respectively, 8 May
                                                                         1999 and 24 September 2000, and for damages and default
2.    Cases shall be allocated to the Chambers in turn,                  interest on the remainder of the pension owed, the Court of
      following four different orders depending on the date on           First Instance (single judge: V. Tiili); Registrar: J. Palacio
      which the cases were registered at the Registry:                   González, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 4 June
                                                                         2003, in which it:
      —     for cases concerning implementation of the rules on
            competition applicable to undertakings, of the rules
            on State aid and the rules on measures to protect
            trade;                                                       1.    dismisses the application in Case T-124/01;
      —     for the cases referred to in Article 236 of the EC
            Treaty and Article 152 of the EAEC Treaty;                   2.    annuls the Commission's decision of 6 September 2001 in so
                                                                               far as the Commission refused to apply the United Kingdom
      —     for the cases concerning intellectual property rights              weighting to the applicant's pension from 1 January 2001;
            referred to in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Proce-
            dure;
      —     for all other cases.                                         3.    dismisses the remainder of the application in Case T-320/01;


title: Case C-477/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of professional qualifications — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/13

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-477/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of professional qualifications - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   2009/C 282/23
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and M. Adam, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 of that directive;

               2.

               orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case C-413/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany) lodged on 10 September 2007 — Kathrin Haase, Adolf Oberdorfer, Doreen Kielon, Peter Schulze, Peter Kliem, Dietmar Bössow, Helge Riedel, André Richter, Andreas Schneider v Superfast Ferries SA, Superfast OKTO Maritime Company, Baltic SF VIII LTD

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany) lodged on 10 September 2007 — Kathrin Haase, Adolf Oberdorfer, Doreen Kielon, Peter Schulze, Peter Kliem, Dietmar Bössow, Helge Riedel, André Richter, Andreas Schneider v Superfast Ferries SA, Superfast OKTO Maritime Company, Baltic SF VIII LTD
   (Case C-413/07)
   (2007/C 283/29)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landesarbeitsgericht Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Kathrin Haase, Adolf Oberdorfer, Doreen Kielon, Peter Schulze, Peter Kliem, Dietmar Bössow, Helge Riedel, André Richter, Andreas Schneider

      Defendants: Superfast Ferries SA, Superfast OKTO Maritime Company, Baltic SF VIII LTD.
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 19(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) be interpreted as meaning that, for employees engaged to work on a particular ship and exclusively working on that particular ship, the ship itself is to be considered as the place where the employee habitually carries out his work?

               2.

               Must Article 19(2)(a) be interpreted as meaning that — at least in a situation in which the ship that is to be considered as the place of work is not used exclusively or predominantly in the territorial waters of any one country, but for international transport services, such as, in the present case, for regular passenger services between Germany and Finland — the court for the home port or for the port of registry in the country under whose flag the ship sails is to be considered as the court for the habitual place of work?

               3.

               Must it be assumed that an employee who works exclusively on a particular ship used for international transport services does not habitually carry out his work in any one country and that, therefore, Article 19(2)(b) rather than Article 19(2)(a) has to be applied for the purposes of determining which court — in a country other than the country where the employee is domiciled — has jurisdiction?

               4.

               If so, must Article 19(2)(b) be interpreted as meaning that the place where the business which engaged the employee is situated can also be an office located in one of the ports regularly visited by the ship, even though it is not operated by the employer itself but by another company entrusted by the employer — by way of a management contract — with organising in its capacity as ‘operator’ the commercial and technical running of its ships, and that company employs, in that office, a ‘crew manager’ who is responsible, inter alia, for coordinating the personnel's assignments, even though employment contracts were not concluded in that office but on the ship by the ship's captain, but where the office was used to issue duty rosters and to receive certificates of incapacity to work and by the ‘crew manager’ working there to give notices of termination of employment ?

               5.

               If question 4 is to be answered in the affirmative:

                           a)

                           Can the purchaser of the ship whose crew members were able, pursuant to Article 19(2)(b), to sue their former employer in the court for the place in which the business which engaged the employee was situated be sued in the same court simply on the basis that the employees who were given notice claim that their contracts of employment were transferred to the purchaser in accordance with provisions on the transfer of undertakings in the national law they claim ought to be applied?

                           b)

                           If an action is also brought against the ‘operator’ — identified in question 4 — who gave the notice, can this action be brought in the same court as the action against the former employer?

      (1)  OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1.


C 19/26                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               25.1.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-254/01 ( 1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-227/02 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 19/45)                                                       (2003/C 19/47)
By order of 20 November 2002 the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities          By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-254/01:              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Commission of the European Communities v Republic of                 from the register of Case C-227/02: Commission of the
Finland.                                                             European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
( 1) OJ C 245 of 01.09.2001.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 180, 27.07.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-280/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 19/46)                                      Removal from the register of Case C-268/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/48)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-280/01
(Referral for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal            By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
(England & Wales) (Civil Division)): Brian Watson v First            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Choice Holidays & Flights Ltd, Aparta Hotels Caledonia SA.           from the register of Case C-268/02: Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
( 1) OJ C 289, 13.10.2001.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 219, 14.09.2002.


title: Case T-164/06: Action brought on 21 June 2006 — ColArt/Americas v OHIM (BASICS)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/27

         Action brought on 21 June 2006 — ColArt/Americas v OHIM (BASICS)
   (Case T-164/06)
   (2006/C 190/49)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: ColArt Americas, Inc (Piscataway, USA) (represented by: E. Soler Borda, lawyer)

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

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for the Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 April 2006 concerning the Trade mark application BASICS No 002433613 (Case R 788/2005-4) in whole;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the following products: colouring matters in the nature of acrylic paints, artists' varnishes.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BASICS’ for goods in class 2 — application No 2 433 613

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(3) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the word ‘BASICS’ is not a familiar expression in the English language with respect to the goods applied for and it is not of such nature as to give the consumers a clear understanding with respect to the products covered by the application. In any case, the trade mark applied for has acquired distinctiveness through use.


title: Case C-467/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Livadias (Livadia Court of First Instance) lodged on 22 October 2007 — Panagiotis Koskovolis and Ekaterini Pappa v Municipality of Kiriaki, Beotia

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Livadias (Livadia Court of First Instance) lodged on 22 October 2007 — Panagiotis Koskovolis and Ekaterini Pappa v Municipality of Kiriaki, Beotia
   (Case C-467/07)
   (2007/C 315/47)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Livadia Court of First Instance
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimants: Panagiotis Koskovolis and Ekaterini Pappa

      Defendant: Municipality of Kiriaki
   Questions referred

               1.

               Do clause 5 and clause 8(1) and (3) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which forms an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70/EC (OJ 1999 L 175 p. 43), mean that Community law (by reason of the application of the said Framework Agreement) does not allow a Member State to adopt measures

                           (a)

                           where an equivalent legal measure within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement already existed under national law before the directive entered into force and

                           (b)

                           where the measures adopted in order to apply the Framework Agreement reduce the general level of protection afforded to fixed-term workers under national law?

               2.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, where there is an equivalent legal measure under national law, within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement, which existed before Directive 1999/70/EC entered into force, such as Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920 at issue in the main proceedings, is the adoption of a legal measure by reason of the application of the Framework Agreement, such as Article 11 of Presidential Decree 164/2004 at issue in the main proceedings, an unacceptable reduction in the general level [of protection] afforded to fixed-term workers under national law within the meaning of clause 8(1) and (3) of the Framework Agreement:

                           (a)

                           when the legal measure in question applying the Framework Agreement was adopted after the time-limit for transposing Directive 1999/70/EC had elapsed, but only fixed-term employment contracts and relationships which were in effect before its entry into force or had expired within a certain period before its entry into force but after the time-limit for transposing the Directive had elapsed fall within its chronological scope, although the equivalent legal measure which already existed does not have a chronologically restricted scope of application and covers all fixed-term employment contracts which had been concluded, were in effect or had expired when Directive 1999/70/EC came into force and the time-limit for its transposition had elapsed;

                           (b)

                           when fixed-term employment contracts or relationships only fall within the scope of application of the legal measure in question applying the Framework Agreement if they can be regarded as successive within the meaning of that measure, satisfying the cumulative requirements:

                                       (i)

                                       that there is a maximum period of three months between them;

                                       (ii)

                                       that they extend for a total of at least 24 months before the measure in question enters into force, irrespective of the number of contract renewals or that, on the basis of those renewals, there has been a minimum total period of work of 18 months over an overall period of 24 months from the original contract, provided that there are at least three renewals since the original contract, whereas the existing equivalent legal measure does not lay down such conditions but covers all the fixed-term (successive) employment contracts, irrespective of a minimum total period of work and a minimum number of contract renewals;

                           (c)

                           when the legal measure in question applying the Framework Agreement provides as a legal consequence for the protection of fixed-term workers and the prevention of abuse, within the meaning of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, for the qualification thereafter (ex nunc) of fixed-term employment contracts as contracts of indefinite duration, whereas the pre-existing legal measure provides for the qualification of fixed-term contracts as contracts of indefinite duration from the time they were originally concluded (ex tunc)?

               3.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, where an equivalent legal measure within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, which forms an integral part of Directive 1999/70/EC, already existed in the national legal order before that directive entered into force, as in the case of Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920 at issue in the main proceedings, is the adoption of a legal measure by reason of the application of the Framework Agreement, such as Article 7 of Presidential Decree 164/2004 at issue in the main proceedings, an unacceptable reduction in the general level of protection afforded to fixed-term workers under national law within the meaning of clause 8(1) and (3) of the Framework Agreement, when that provides, as the sole means of protection of fixed-term workers from abuse, for an obligation on the part of the employer to pay wages and severance pay where workers have wrongfully been employed under successive fixed-term employment contracts, bearing in mind

                           (a)

                           that the obligation to pay wages and severance pay is provided for under national law for all employment relationships and is not intended specifically to prevent abuse within the meaning of the Framework Agreement, and

                           (b)

                           that the legal consequence of the application of the earlier equivalent legal measure is that successive fixed-term contracts of employment are recognised as a contract of indefinite duration?

               4.

               If all the above questions are answered in the affirmative, should the national court, in interpreting national law in accordance with Directive 1999/70/EC, disapply the provisions of the legal measure which are not compatible with it, but which were adopted by reason of the application of the Framework Agreement and result in a reduction in the general level of protection afforded to fixed-term workers under national law, such as Articles 7 and 11 of Presidential Decree 164/2004, and apply instead an equivalent legal measure which existed before the directive entered into force, such as Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920?

               5.

               If the national court finds that — in principle — a provision that constitutes an equivalent legal measure within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, which is an integral part of Directive 1999/70/EC, is applicable to a dispute over fixed-term work and, on the basis of that provision, the finding that successive contracts of employment were concluded as a fixed-term contract for no objective reason relating to the nature, type or features of the work offered means that the contracts must be recognised as a contract of employment of indefinite duration, then

                           (a)

                           is it compatible with Community law for a national court to interpret and apply national law to the effect that the fact that a legal provision governing employment under a fixed-term contract of employment in order to meet seasonal, periodic, temporary or exceptional needs was used as the legal basis for concluding a fixed-term contract constitutes an objective reason in all cases for concluding such contracts, even though the requirements covered were in fact fixed and permanent, and

                           (b)

                           is it compatible with Community law for a national court to interpret and apply national law to the effect that a provision prohibiting the conversion of fixed-term contracts of employment in the public sector to contracts of indefinite duration must be construed as a prohibition in any circumstance to convert a fixed-term employment contract or relationship in the public sector to an employment contract or relationship of indefinite duration, even if it was wrongfully concluded as a fixed-term contract, although it could be construed to the effect that the prohibition in question must be restricted solely to fixed-term contracts of employment which were in fact concluded in order to meet temporary, unforeseeable, urgent or exceptional requirements and not to cases in which they were in fact concluded in order to meet fixed and permanent requirements?