title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen by order of that court of 2 February 1998 in the case of Söhl & Söhlke against Hauptzollamt Bremen (Case C-48/98)

text:
C 137/8              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.5.98
Appeal brought on 23 February 1998 by European                           analyses, submitted by EFMA to demonstrate the
Fertiliser Manufacturers Association (EFMA) against the                  absence of difference between Russian and
judgment delivered on 17 December 1997 by the Fourth                     Community urea, concerned ex-Russian factory urea
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First                     whereas the Russian urea used for the purpose of these
Instance of the European Communities in case T-121/                      analyses was, in fact, taken from the Community
95 (1) between European Fertiliser Manufacturers                         market,
Association (EFMA) and Council of the European Union,
       supported by the Commission of the European
                         Communities                                Ð incorrect legal characterisation of the facts by the
                                                                         Court of First Instance in that, on the basis of the
                      (Case C-46/98 P)                                   information/evidence available to EFMA during the
                        (98/C 137/17)                                    administrative proceedings, the Court of First Instance
                                                                         could not reasonably affirm that EFMA's right to a
                                                                         fair hearing was not infringed,
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 December
1997 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities             Ð violation of Article 173 of the EC Treaty in the sense
in    case    T-121/95     between      European     Fertiliser          that the Court of First Instance failed to grant a
Manufacturers Association (EFMA) and the Council of                      judicial protection to EFMA by its refusal to take into
the European Union, supported by the Commission of the                   account the Z/Yen report.
European Communities, was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 23 February                  (1) OJ C 189, 22.7.1995, p. 18.
1998 by European Fertiliser Manufacturers Association
(EFMA), represented by Dominique Voillemot and Olivier
Prost, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11,
rue Goethe.
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
                                                                    Bremen by order of that court of 2 February 1998 in the
                                                                        case of Söhl & Söhlke against Hauptzollamt Bremen
1. annul the decision of the Court of First Instance dated
    17 December 1997 on the points of law described in                                      (Case C-48/98)
    the present appeal;                                                                      (98/C 137/18)
2. refer the matter back to the Court of First Instance if
    necessary;                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht
3. order the Council to pay the costs of the proceeding             Bremen (Finance Court, Bremen) of 2 February 1998,
    before the Court of First Instance and the costs of the         received at the Court Registry on 24 February 1998, for a
    present proceeding before the Court of Justice.                 preliminary ruling in the case of Söhl & Söhlke against
                                                                    Hauptzollamt Bremen on the following questions.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    1. Does Article 859 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
Ð absence of statement of reasons in that the Court of                   No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for
    First Instance failed to indicate the reason for which it            the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
    refused to examine the first and the second pleas in                 No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs
    law put forward by EFMA in its application before                    Code (1) (the implementing Regulation) contain a
    the Court of First Instance,                                         validly constituted and exhaustive set of rules on
                                                                         failures, within the meaning of Article 204(1)(a) of
Ð violation of Article 173 of the EC Treaty in that the                  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October
    Court of First Instance apparently considered that                   1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2)
    EFMA did not have an interest for the determination                  (the Customs Code), which have no significant effect
    of the first and second pleas in law it put forward in               on the correct operation of the temporary storage or
    its application before the Court of First Instance,                  customs procedure in question'?
Ð substantive inaccuracy of the Court of First Instance             2. If question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:
    findings and distortion of evidence in that the Court of
    First Instance based its findings for the quality                    (a) Where an application is made in time for an
    adjustment on a percentage figure allegedly agreed by                     extension of the time limit referred to in
    EFMA, but which, in fact, was not,                                        Article 859(1) of the implementing Regulation, is
                                                                              the national court precluded from examining of its
Ð substantive inaccuracy of the Court of First Instance                       own motion the criteria for the grant of such an
    findings and distortion of evidence in that the Court of                  extension where it has been refused by a now
    First Instance affirmed that the technical and chemical                   unappealable decision of the customs authority?
 ---pagebreak--- 2.5.98                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 137/9
    (b) Is it permissible for an application for an extension        6. Where the repayment criteria laid down in
         to relate not to declarations to be listed                      Article 900(1)(o) of the implementing Regulation are
         individually but instead globally to all declarations           fulfilled, can it ordinarily be assumed that the person
        to be made within a given period (in this case,                  concerned has not acted with any fraudulent intent or
        several months), where reference is made, by way                 in a manner which is obviously negligent?
         of justification, to special problems existing during
         that period in the applicant's business (for                7. If question 6 and/or question 4 are to be answered in
         example, the fact that employees have suddenly                  the negative:
         fallen ill or have been absent on leave, the
                                                                         Should the term obvious negligence' in the second
         induction of new employees, problems with the
                                                                         indent of Article 239(1) of the Customs Code be
         application of a data-processing system developed
                                                                         defined according to objective and/or subjective
         for the purposes of carrying out customs
                                                                         criteria, and does it have the same meaning as the
         formalities or, in cases involving outward
                                                                         term obvious negligence' in the second indent of
         processing, the excessive work involved in the
                                                                         Article 859 of the implementing Regulation and the
         preparation of attributions which should in fact
                                                                         term manifest negligence' in Article 212a? Can no
         have been prepared by the customs authorities),
                                                                         obvious negligence' be said to exist within the
         without obvious negligence arising within the
                                                                         meaning of Article 239 of the Customs Code where
         meaning of the second indent of Article 859 on the
                                                                         customs debts on importation have been incurred
         implementing Regulation?
                                                                         pursuant to Article 204(1)(a) because, for reasons such
                                                                         as those given by way of example in question 2(b),
3. If question 1 is to be answered in the negative:
                                                                         there has been non-compliance over a period of many
                                                                         months with the time limit laid down in Article 49(1)
    Must it be assumed that the numerous instances of                    of the Customs Code and no circumstances justifying
    failure to comply in time with the obligation to assign              extensions of time existed, with the result that there
    to goods presented to customs a customs-approved                     was also obvious negligence within the meaning of the
    treatment or use are to be considered to have no                    second indent of Article 859 of the implementing
    significant effect on the correct operation of the                   Regulation?
    temporary storage or customs procedure in question'
    where such treatment or use is assigned to the goods             (1) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1.
    after the time limit has expired and an extension of             (2) OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.
    the time allowed for such assignment would not have              (3) OJ L 346, 31.12.1994, p. 1.
    been justified pursuant to Article 49(2) of the Customs
    Code?
4. If question 2(b) or question 3 is to be answered in the
    negative:
                                                                     References for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht,
                                                                     Wiesbaden, by orders of that court of 10, 13, 16 and
    Is Article 900(1)(o) of the implementing Regulation, as
                                                                     17 February 1998 in the cases of Finalarte Sociedade de
    inserted by Article 1(29) of Commission Regulation
                                                                     ConstrucËao Civil, Lda against Urlaubs- und Lohnaus-
    (EC) No 3254/94 (3), concerning eligibility for
                                                                     gleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft (C-49/98) and Urlaubs-
    preferential rates or Community treatment, also
                                                                     und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft against
    applicable to the grant of other forms of preferential
                                                                     1. Amilcar Oliveira Rocha (C-50/98), 2. Works in the
    tariff treatment?
                                                                     World Srl (C-51/98), 3. Tudor Stone Ltd (C-52/98),
                                                                     4. Tecnamb-Tecnologia do Ambiente, Lda (C-53/98) and
5. If question 4 is to be answered in the negative:                         5. Turiprata ConstrucËoes Civil, Lda (C-54/98)
                                                                     (Cases C-49/98, C-50/98, C-51/98, C-52/98, C-53/98 and
    Where a claim is made for repayment, are the customs
                                                                                C-54/98)
    authorities and courts required to examine of their
    own motion whether all relevant criteria for                                             (98/C 137/19)
    repayment are fulfilled, even in the event that the
    claimant expressly bases his claim for repayment on              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    one legal criterion only, thus rendering it necessary, in        European Communities by orders of the First, Fifth,
    circumstances such as those of the present case, to              Seventh and Eighth Chambers of the Arbeitsgericht
    examine whether the conditions laid down in the                  (Labour Court), Wiesbaden, of 10, 13, 16 and 17 February
    second indent of Article 239(1) of the Customs Code              1998, received at the Court Registry on 24 February
    in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 905(1)         1998, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Finalarte
    of the implementing Regulation are fulfilled with                Sociedade de ConstrucËao Civil, Lda against Urlaubs- und
    regard to declarations for entry into free circulation in        Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft (Holiday and Wage
    which valid movement certificates on form EUR.1 or               Equalisation Fund of the Construction Industry) (C-49/98)
    certificates of origin on form A have been produced,             and Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft
    and where there exists the possibility of total or               against 1. Amilcar Oliveira Rocha (C-50/98), 2. Works in
    partial exemption from import duties of goods which              the World Srl (C-51/98), 3. Tudor Stone Ltd (C-52/98), 4.
    have been reimported following outward processing                Tecnamb-Tecnologia do Ambiente, Lda (C-53/98) and 5.
    (differential customs clearance) or goods returned               Turiprata ConstrucËoes Civil, Lda (C-54/98) on the
    following repair?                                                following questions.


title: Case C-418/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Articles 4 and 10 — Transposition and application — IBA 2000 — Value — Quality of the data — Criteria — Margin of discretion — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Article 6 — Transposition and application)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-418/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 79/409/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Articles 4 and 10 - Transposition and application - IBA 2000 - Value - Quality of the data - Criteria - Margin of discretion - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Article 6 - Transposition and application)
   (2008/C 51/06)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (B. Doherty and M. van Beek, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by D. O'Hagan, Agent, E. Cogan, Barrister, and G. Hogan SC)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic, (represented by: E. Skandalou, Agent), Kingdom of Spain (represented by N. Díaz Abad)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 4 and 10 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) — Breach of Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing:

                           —

                           to classify, since 6 April 1981, in accordance with Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, as amended by Commission Directive 97/49/EC of 29 July 1997, all the most suitable territories in number and size for the species mentioned in Annex I to that directive, with the exception of those intended to ensure conservation of the Greenland white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons flavirostris), as well as for regularly occurring migratory species not mentioned in Annex I, with the exception of those intended to ensure protection of the lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), the redshank (Tringa totanus), the snipe (Gallinago gallinago) and the curlew (Numenius arquata);

                           —

                           to ensure that, since 6 April 1981, the provisions of the first sentence of Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409, as amended by Directive 97/49, are applied to areas requiring classification as special protection areas under that directive;

                           —

                           to transpose and apply the provisions of the second sentence of Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409, as amended by Directive 97/49, fully and correctly;

                           —

                           to take all the measures necessary to comply with Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in respect of all special protection areas classified under Article 4(1) of Directive 79/409, as amended by Directive 97/49, or recognised under Article 4(2) of that directive;

                           —

                           to take all the measures necessary to comply with Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43 in respect of recreational use of all sites intended to be subject to that article;

                           —

                           to take all the measures necessary to comply with Article 6(3) and (4) of Directive 92/43 in respect of plans;

                           —

                           to take all the measures necessary to comply with Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 in respect of authorisation of aquaculture programmes;

                           —

                           to take all the measures necessary to comply with of Article 6(2) to (4) of Directive 92/43 in respect of the drain maintenance works in the Glen Lough special protection area; and

                           —

                           to take all the measures necessary to comply with Article 10 of Directive 79/409, as amended by Directive 97/49,

                     Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1), (2) and (4), and 10 of Directive 79/409, as amended by Directive 97/49, and Article 6(2) to (4) of Directive 92/43.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action.

               3.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

               4.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.


title: Case T-275/09: Order of the General Court of 4 July 2011 — Sepracor Pharmaceuticals v Commission (Action for annulment — Medicinal products for human use — Active substance eszopiclone — Marketing authorisation — Refusal of recognition as a new active substance — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/17

         Order of the General Court of 4 July 2011 — Sepracor Pharmaceuticals v Commission
   (Case T-275/09) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Medicinal products for human use - Active substance eszopiclone - Marketing authorisation - Refusal of recognition as a new active substance - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 282/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sepracor Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: I. Dodds-Smith, Solicitor, D. Anderson QC, and J. Stratford, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos, and subsequently by M. Wilderspin and M. Šimerdová, Agents)

      Re:

   ACTION for annulment of the decision in the letter of the Commission addressed to the applicant on 6 May 2009 in the context of the procedure for authorising the placing on the market of Lunivia, inasmuch as it concerns classification of the active substance eszopiclone

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Sepracor Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Ltd shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case T-649/13: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Trekstor v OHIM (SmartTV Station) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark SmartTV Station — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Trekstor v OHIM (SmartTV Station)
   (Case T-649/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark SmartTV Station - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 414/34)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker and M. Alber, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially M. Fischer, then G. Schneider and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2013 (Case R 128/2013-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign SmartTV Station as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders TrekStor Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.


title: Case T-120/10: Action brought on 8 March 2010 — ClientEarth e.a. v Commission

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/42

         Action brought on 8 March 2010 — ClientEarth e.a. v Commission
   (Case T-120/10)
   2010/C 134/71
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom), Transport & Environment (Brussels, Belgium) European Environmental Bureau (Brussels, Belgium) and BirdLife International (Brussels, Belgium), (represented by: S. Hockman QC, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the defendant in violation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (2);

               —

               declare that the reasons for refusal of a document under Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 must be stated in a written reply during the prescribed time-limits of the two-stage administrative procedure, or be waived as claims to an exception of defences at law, and otherwise fall outside the scope of judicial review;

               —

               annul the contested decision of 9 February 2010 (SG.E3/MM/psi-Ares (2010)70321), by which the Commission declared its intention to withhold from the applicants certain documents containing environmental information;

               —

               order the defendant to provide access to all requested documents identified in the course of its review of the 15 October 2009 application, the confirmatory application of 17 December 2009, and all documents generated during the consideration thereof, without delay or redaction according to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay applicant’s costs, including the costs of any intervening party.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 9 February 2010, by which the defendant declared its intention to withhold from the applicants certain documents containing environmental information relating to greenhouse gas emissions resulting of production of biofuels, produced and/or used by the Commission in accordance with Directive 2009/28/EC (3).
   In support of his appeal, the appellant submits the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, violation of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for failure to provide timely disclosure of documents or reasons for withholding. The application was submitted on 15 October 2009. The defendant issued a partial refusal, releasing four documents and withholding approximately two hundred documents. Applicants challenged the basis of the refusal. On 9 February 2010, the date of expiration of the time-limit prescribed in the regulation, the Commission refused to disclose the remaining documents or to provide valid reasons for withholding them.

               Secondly, violation of Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for failure to provide detailed reasons for withholding each document. In order to qualify for an exception, detailed reasons for withholding each document must be provided in a written reply within the prescribed time-limit. On 9 February 2010, the date of expiration of the time-limit prescribed in the regulation, the Commission refused to release the remaining documents and offered no detailed reasons for withholding them as required under the regulation and case-law.

               In addition, the applicants claim violation of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for failure to carry out a concrete, individual assessment of the content of each document. The Commission is required to perform a concrete, individual assessment of the content of each document in determining whether the document or any portion thereof falls under an exception to the general rule that all documents should be made accessible. On 9 February 2010, the date of expiration of the time-limit prescribed in the regulation, the Commission admitted that this analysis had not been performed on the request documents and, to the extent any analysis was performed, it was not made available to applicants.

               Furthermore, the applicants claim infringement of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 for unlawful application of the Article 4(3) exception. The Commission originally claimed the Article 4(3) exception for approximately two hundred documents. On 9 February 2010, the date of expiration of the time-limit prescribed in the regulation, the Commission did not release the documents. In order to claim the Article 4(3) exception, the Commission must show that the document or information contained therein would seriously undermine its decision-making process. Applicants allege that the documents, containing environmental information relating to emissions in the environment, would not seriously undermine the Commission’s decision-making process and, to the extent that any document or information qualified for an exception, there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.

               At the same time, the applicants claim violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for failure to redact documents. In the instance the Commission refuses to release requested documents, it must consider redaction, if possible, of those sections that otherwise qualify for a claim to exception and release those portions that fall outside the exception. Applicants allege that the Commission failed to consider and perform redaction and, as a result, withheld information or portions of documents that should have otherwise been released.

               Finally, it is submitted that the defendant infringed Article 4(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for failure to identify the period of application of the Article 4(3) exception. In the instance the Commission refuses to release requested documents or portions thereof, it must identify the period that the exception applies. Applicants allege that the Commission failed to consider and disclose the period that any otherwise valid claim to exception applies.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43)

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ L 264, p. 13)

      (3)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 140, p. 16)


title: Appeal brought on 15 April 1996 by Susan Ryan-Sheridan against the judgment delivered on 15 February 1996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-589/93 between Susan Ryan-Sheridan and European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Case C-119/96 P)

text:
No C 158/ 10            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       1 . 6 . 96
Appeal brought on 15 April 1996 by Susan Ryan-Sheridan                   gericht ( Higher Labour Court) Hamburg — Third Chamber
against the judgment delivered on 15 February 1996 by the                — of 29 March 1996 , which was received at the Court
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                      Registry on 15 April 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
European Communities in Case T-589/93 between Susan                      dispute between Mrs Sultan Bulut and Deutsche Bundespost
Ryan-Sheridan and European Foundation for the                            on the following questions :
        Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
                          Case C-1 19/96 P                               1 . Is Article 1 ( 1 ) of Directive 77/ 178/EEC ( ') to be
                                                                             interpreted as meaning that there is also a transfer of
                             ( 96/C 158/22 )
                                                                             part of a business to another employer within the
                                                                             meaning of that provision in the case where an
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 February                      undertaking gradually transfers the cleaning of its
1 996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                 business premises, hitherto carried out by its own
the European Communities in Case T-589/93 between                            employees , which was so organized that each of those
Susan Ryan-Sheridan and European Foundation for the                          employees was allocated a specific area of its business
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions was                             premises to clean, in such a way that each time a cleaner
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                          retires or is for other reasons no longer able , either
Communities on 15 April 1996 by Susan Ryan-Sheridan,                         temporarily or permanently, to perform her cleaning
represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liège Bar, with an                  work, her cleaning area is handed over to an outside
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                         undertaking for the purposes of cleaning ?
Evelyne Korn , Rue de Nassau .
                                                                             Does the reply to that question depend on whether the
The appellant claims that the Court should :                                 gradual transfer to an outside undertaking of entire
— annul the judgment being appealed against ('),                             business premises or at least of a portion of business
                                                                             premises consisting of several cleaning areas is
— itself give judgment in the dispute and annul the                          uniformly made to one and the same undertaking ?
      decisions contested by way of the action which she
      brought before the Court of First Instance, on the basis           2 . If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative : is the
      of the pleas and evidence which she submitted to                       first sentence of Article 4 ( 1 ) of Directive 77/87/EEC to
      it ( 2 ),                                                              be interpreted as meaning that notice of termination
                                                                             with an offer of new contractual terms for the purpose
— order the defendant to pay to her Bfr 500 000 by way of                    of reducing the working time of a cleaner is not
      damages,                                                               permissible under that provision if it has been served on
                                                                             the ground that employment to the previous extent is no
— order the defendant to pay the costs of both proceedings,                  longer possible because of an organizational decision,
      including the costs of the procedure for interim relief.               and if the cleaner could, had it not been for the decision
                                                                             to award the work to an outside firm within the meaning
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              of the first question, continue to be employed for the
                                                                             number of hours worked previously by having work
— misuse of powers or at least lack of procedural                            allocated to her to the full extent or additionally which
      impartiality of the Recruitment Committee ,                            in itself, because of the decision to transfer all cleaning
      abuse of process;                                                      areas that fall free, is no longer to be carried out by the
                                                                             undertaking's own employees ?
— invalidity of the internal notice,
      breach of the principle of equal treatment;
                                                                         (') OJ No L 61 , 1977, p . 26 .
— manifest error of assessment,
      breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of
      officials .
(') OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 , p . 14 .
( 2 ) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 , p . 18 .
                                                                         Action brought on 17 April 1996 by the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                                ( Case C-124/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 158/24 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeits
gericht Hamburg by order of that court of 29 March 1996 in
the dispute between Mrs Sultan Bulut and Deutsche                        An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                               Bundespost                                the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         17 April 1 996 by the Commission of the European
                           ( Case C-121 /96 )
                                                                         Communities , represented by Enrico Traversa and
                             ( 96/C 158/23 )                             Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz, of its Legal Service, acting
                                                                         as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
European Communities by order of the Landesarbeits                      Kirchberg.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2003 in Case C-75/01: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild fauna and flora)

text:
5.4.2003                   EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 83/3
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Sixth Chamber)                                                             (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 13 February 2003                                                         of 6 February 2003
in Case C-75/01: Commission of the European Communi-                          in Case C-92/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
              ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1)                           from the Monomeles Dioikitiko Protodikeio Irakleiou):
                                                                                Georgios Stylianakis v Elliniko Dimosio (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats —                      (Article 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article
                          Wild fauna and flora)                               18 EC) — European citizenship — Article 59 of the Treaty
                                                                              (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) — Freedom to
                                                                              provide services — Community air transport — Airport tax
                             (2003/C 83/04)                                        — Discrimination — Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92)
                       (Language of the case: French)                                                    (2003/C 83/05)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                            (Language of the case: Greek)
                      in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-75/01: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: B. Wainwright and J. Adda) against Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg (Agent: J. Faltz) — application for a declaration
that, by failing to take all the necessary measures to implement              In Case C-92/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
fully and correctly Articles 1, 4(5), 5(4), 6, 7, 12(1)(b) and (c),           by the Monomeles Diikitiko Protodikio Irakliou (Greece) for a
12(2), 12(4), 13(1)(b) and 13(2), 14, 15, 16(1), 22(b) and (c),               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
and 23(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on                    court between Georgios Stylianakis and Elliniko Dimosio, on
the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and                    the interpretation of Articles 8a and 59 of the EC Treaty (now,
flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) in conjunction with annexes I, II,                after amendment, Articles 18 and 49 EC) and Article 3(1) of
IV, V and VI of that directive, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg                 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive and under            access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air
the third paragraph of Article 249 EC — the Court of Justice                  routes (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 8), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
(Sixth Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of the               composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the
Chamber, and C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris.                          Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha
F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate                       Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 February                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 February 2003, in which
2003, in which it:                                                            it has ruled:
1.    Declared that, by failing to take all the necessary measures to         Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July
                                                                              1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air
      implement fully and correctly Articles 1, 4(5), 5(4), 6, 7,
                                                                              routes precludes a measure adopted by a Member State, such as that
      12(1)(b) and (c), 12(2), 12(4), 13(1)(b), 14, 15, 16(1),
                                                                              at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes on, for the most
      22(b), and 23(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May
                                                                              part, flights to other Member States higher airport tax than that
      1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
      and flora in conjunction with annexes I, II, IV, V and VI of            applicable to domestic flights within that Member State unless it is
                                                                              shown that those taxes compensate airport services necessary for the
      that directive, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to
                                                                              processing of passengers and that the cost of those services provided
      fulfil its obligations under the directive;
                                                                              to passengers flying to other Member States is proportionately higher
                                                                              than the cost of those services necessary for the processing of
2.    Ordered Luxembourg to pay the costs.                                    passengers on domestic flights.
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                                   (1 ) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.


title: Case T-548/11: Order of the General Court of 26 November 2012 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Real Seguros (real,- QUALITY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Revocation of earlier national trade marks — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/47

         Order of the General Court of 26 November 2012 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Real Seguros (real,- QUALITY)
   (Case T-548/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Revocation of earlier national trade marks - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 26/93
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Real Seguros, SA (Porto, Portugal)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 August 2011 (Case R 114/2011-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Real Seguros, SA and MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs incurred before the General Court.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.


title: Case T-324/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 October 2009 — Estonia v Commission (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Transitional measures to be adopted by reason of the accession of new Member States — Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector — Action for annulment — Collegiality — Concept of stock — Circumstances in which stocks were built up — Statement of reasons — Sound administration — Good faith — Non-discrimination — Right of property — Proportionality)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 October 2009 — Estonia v Commission
   (Case T-324/05) (1)

   (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Transitional measures to be adopted by reason of the accession of new Member States - Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector - Action for annulment - Collegiality - Concept of ‘stock’ - Circumstances in which stocks were built up - Statement of reasons - Sound administration - Good faith - Non-discrimination - Right of property - Proportionality)
   2009/C 282/69
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: L. Uibo, Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: intially L. Visaggio and E. Randvere and subsequently by T. van Rijn, H. Tserepa-Lacombe and E. Randvere, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: intially E. Balode-Buraka, L. Ostrovska and K. Drēviņa, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 of 31 May 2005 on the determination of surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose and fructose for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2005 L 138, p. 3)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Estonia to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Latvia to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 271, of 29.10.2005.


title: Case C-263/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 19 June 2008 — Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening v Stockholms kommun genom dess marknämnd

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/34

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 19 June 2008 — Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening v Stockholms kommun genom dess marknämnd
   (Case C-263/08)
   (2008/C 209/51)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Högsta domstolen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening

      Defendant: Stockholms kommun genom dess marknämnd
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is point 10 of Annex II to Directive 85/337 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it encompasses water-related works which involve the drawing off from a tunnel for power cables of groundwater leaking into it and infiltration (supply) of water into the ground or hill to compensate for any reduction in the groundwater, and the construction and maintenance of installations for the drawing off and infiltration?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative: Does the provision in Article 10a of Directive 85/337 — that under certain circumstances the public concerned is to have access to a review procedure before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law to challenge the substantive or procedural legality of a decision — imply that there is also a requirement that the public concerned is to be entitled to challenge a decision of a court in planning consent proceedings in a case where the public concerned has had the opportunity of participating in the court's examination of the question of planning consent and of submitting its views to that court?

               3.

               If the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are affirmative: Are Articles 1(2), 6(4) and 10a of Directive 85/337 to be interpreted as meaning that different national requirements can be laid down with regard to the public concerned referred to in Articles 6(4) and 10a, with the result that small, locally established environmental protection associations have a right to participate in the decision-making procedures referred to in Article 6(4) in respect of projects which may have significant effects on the environment in the area where the association is active but do not have a right of appeal such as is referred to in Article 10a?

      (1)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).


title: Case T-73/00: Action brought on 27 March 2000 by Nicolás Martinez Rey and Others v Council of the European Union

text:
C 163/28                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.6.2000
        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 24 January 2000                                                        of 23 March 2000
   in Case T-179/98: José Guijarro and Others v Council (1)                in Case T-266/99: Librairie de Rome v European Parlia-
                                                                                ment (1)
(Officials — Interest in bringing an action — Abstract and
general interest — Measure adversely affecting officials —                 (Public service contract — Invitation to tender — Selection
                 None — Manifestly inadmissible)                           criteria — Rejection of tender — Action manifestly
                                                                                unfounded in law)
                            (2000/C 163/54)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/55)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-179/98: José Cuenda Guijarro, an official of the
Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels, Eva                   In Case T-266/99: Librairie de Rome, established in Brussels,
Hellgren, an official of the Council of the European Union,                represented by L. Dehin and C. Bruls, of the Liege Bar, with an
residing in Brussels, Petri Samuli Laaksonen, an official of the           address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of C. Duro,
Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels, Hans                  3 Rue de la Chapelle, v European Parliament (Agents: T. Millett
Lund, an official of the Council of the European Union,                    and A. Neergaard) — application for annulment of the
residing in Brussels, Daniel Marlier, an official of the Council of        Parliament’s decision to award to a tenderer other than the
the European Union, residing in Masnuy-Saint-Jean (Belgium),               applicant the contract for the provision of fitted kiosk premises
Maria Augusta Santos, an official of the Council of the                    for the sale of newspapers — the Court of First Instance
European Union, residing in Brussels, Agneta Sederowsky, an                (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, and
official of the Council of the European Union, residing in                 A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
Brussels, Jacqueline Willems, an official of the Council of the            an order on 23 March 2000, the operative part of which is as
European Union, residing in Tervuren (Belgium), and Noé                    follows:
Youssouroum, an official of the Council of the European
Union, residing in Brussels, represented by J.-N. Louis and                1. The action is dismissed.
F. Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue               2. The defendant shall pay the costs.
de Cessange, against the Council of the European Union
(Agents: F. Van Craeyenest, M. Bauer and D. Waelbroeck) —
application for the annulment of the Council decision of                   (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
12 January 1998 rejecting, first, the applicants’ request that
certain safety, health protection and environmental measures
at the workplace be taken in respect of the Council’s ‘Justus
Lipsius’ Building in Brussels and, secondly, the claim for
compensation in respect of non-material damage which they
claim to have suffered as a result of faults, omissions and
instances of negligence by the institution in relation to the
state of that building — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of R. Garcia Valdecasas, President of the               Action brought on 27 March 2000 by Nicolás Martinez
Chamber, P. Lindh, and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,                  Rey and Others v Council of the European Union
has given a judgment on 24 January 2000, in which it:
                                                                                (Case T-73/00)
1. Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;
                                                                                (2000/C 163/56)
2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay half of
      the defendant’s costs;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
3. Orders the defendant to pay half of its costs.
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union was
( 1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                               brought before the Court of First Instance on 27 March 2000
                                                                           by Nicolás Martı́nez Rey and Others, of Coruña, Spain,
                                                                           represented by Ramón Garcı́a-Gallardo and Marı́a Dolores
                                                                           Domı́nguez Pérez, with chambers in Brussels at 19 Square de
                                                                           Meeûs.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.6.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 163/29
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:           Pleas in law and main arguments
— Annul part nine of Annex ID to Council Regulation (EC)
    No 2742/1999 of 17 December 1999 fixing for 2000 the                The trade mark con-           verbal mark ‘LITE’ — application
    fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain         cerned:                       No 214932
    fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in
    Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters              Goods or service con-         Goods and services in Classes 5,
    where limitations in catch are required and amending                cerned:                       29, 30, 32 and 33 (essentially
    Regulation (EC) No 66/98;                                                                         foodstuffs and beverages)
— Annul point 1, 1.1, second subparagraph, indent (i), of               Decision contested be-        Refusal of registration by the
    Annex IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 685/95 of                    fore the Board of Ap-         examiner
    27 March 1995 on the management of the fishing effort               peal:
    relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources,
    on the basis of the reasons stated, in so far as the Council        Grounds of claim:             — Denial by the Board of Appeal
    approved, for the year 2000, an analytical TAC for Zone                                               of the right to a fair hearing
    VIII and a common TAC is not possible; and                                                        — Misapplication of Article
                                                                                7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                                  40/94
                                                                                — Misapplication of Article
                                                                                7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                           40/94
The pleas in law and supporting arguments are the same as
those put forward in Case T-54/00 FCPG and Others v Council.
                                                                        Action brought on 6 April 2000 by Hänseler GmbH and
                                                                        Schuck GmbH against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 4 April 2000 by Rewe-Zentral AG                                                 Communities
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (Case T-83/00)
                         (Case T-79/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/58)
                        (2000/C 163/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                 European Communities on 6 April 2000 by Hänseler GmbH,
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                  of Konstanz, Germany, and Schuck GmbH, of Schwaig,
4 April 2000 by Rewe-Zentral AG, of Cologne (Federal                    Germany, represented by Burkhard Sträter, Rechtsanwalt,
Republic of Germany), represented by Maximilian Kinkeldey,              Bonn, Germany.
Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs Grünecker, Kinkeldey, Stockmair &
Schwarthäusser, Munich (Federal Republic of Germany).
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul Commission Decision K (2000) 608 of 9 March
— annul the decision adopted on 27 January 2000 by the                      2000;
    Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
    the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in the                — in the alternative, annul the Commission’s decision in so
    appeal proceedings registered under number R 275/                       far as Article 1 in conjunction with Annex I thereof
    1999-3;                                                                 requires the Member State Germany to withdraw the
                                                                            authorisations for the applicants’ medicinal products con-
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     taining norpseudoephredin;


title: Case C-80/05 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2005 (by fax/email on 16 February 2005) by Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 1 December 2004 in Case T-27/02 Kronofrance S.A. v Commission of the European Communities, supported by Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/16

         Appeal brought on 18 February 2005 (by fax/email on 16 February 2005) by Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 1 December 2004 in Case T-27/02 Kronofrance S.A. v Commission of the European Communities, supported by Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH
   (Case C-80/05 P)
   (2005/C 106/31)
   Language of the case: German
   An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 1 December 2004 in Case T-27/02 Kronofrance S.A. v Commission of the European Communities, supported by Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 February 2005 (by fax/email 16 February 2005) by Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH, represented by Dr Hans-Jörg Niemeyer, Rechtsanwalt, Hengeler Mueller, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 1 December 2004 in Case T-27/02 (1) and dismiss the application;

               2.

               in the alternative, set aside the contested judgment and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

               3.

               order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The contested judgment of the Court of First Instance should be set aside on the following grounds:

               —

               The Court of First Instance infringed Article 87(3) EC, since it interpreted incorrectly the multisectoral regional aid framework for large investment projects, and thereby disregarded the discretion enjoyed by the Commission in drawing up and applying that Community framework. Moreover, the Court of First Instance's economic assessment, namely that aid in a shrinking market is known to create substantial risks of distortions of competition even if there is no overcapacity in the sector concerned, is wrong.

               —

               The Court of First Instance found, as a result of an incorrect interpretation of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, that the applicant at first instance had locus standi and the application was therefore admissible. The applicant is not directly and individually concerned by the contested aid, since there is no relationship of competition between it and the appellants.

               —

               The Court of First Instance infringed Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure. It should have clarified the facts further by means of measure of organisation of procedure, in order to ascertain the facts which were said to justify the applicant's locus standi.

               —

               The Court of First Instance infringed the second paragraph of Article 230 EC, since in its judgment it went beyond the complaints raised in the application.

      (1)  OJ No C 31 of 5.2.2005.


title: Case C-222/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 17 May 2005 in 1. J. van der Weerd, 2. Maatschap van der Bijl, and 3. J. W. Schoonhoven v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 17 May 2005 in 1. J. van der Weerd, 2. Maatschap van der Bijl, and 3. J. W. Schoonhoven v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   (Case C-222/05)
   (2005/C 193/21)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and Industry) (Netherlands ) of 17 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 20 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between 1. J. van der Weerd, 2. Maatschap van der Bijl, and 3. J. W. Schoonhoven and Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Minister for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality) on the following questions:

               1.

               Does Community law require the courts of their own motion to conduct an examination, that is to say an examination of grounds which are outside the terms of the dispute but are based on Directive 85/511/EEC? (1)

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, does the obligation on Member States under the first indent of Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511/EEC, read in conjunction with the second indent of Article 13(1) thereof, to ensure that laboratory testing to detect the presence of FMD is carried out by a laboratory listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC have direct effect?

               3.

                           (a)

                           Must Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511/EEC be interpreted as meaning that legal consequences must be attached to the fact that the presence of FMD is found by a laboratory which is not listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to Question 3(a) is in the affirmative:
                           Is the purpose of Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511/EEC to protect the interests of individuals, such as the appellants in the main proceedings? If not, can individuals, such as the appellants in the main proceedings, plead possible failure to fulfil the obligations which this provision places on the authorities of the Member States?

                           (c)

                           If the answer to Question 3(b) means that individuals can rely on Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511/EEC:
                           What legal consequences must be attached to a finding of the presence of FMD by a laboratory which is not listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC?

               4.

               Must Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC be interpreted, having regard to Articles 11 and 13 thereof, as meaning that the mention in Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC of ‘Centraal Diergeneeskundig Instituut, Lelystad’ can or must refer also to ID-Lelystad B.V.?

               5.

               If it follows from the above answers that the presence of FMD can be found by a laboratory which is not listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC or that Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the mention of the ‘Centraal Diergeneeskundig Instituut, Lelystad’ can or must refer also to ID-Lelystad B.V.:
               Must Directive 85/511/EEC be interpreted as providing that the national administrative authority authorised to adopt decisions is bound by the outcome of an examination by a laboratory which is listed in Annex B to Directive 85/551/EEC or — if the answer to Question 2a means that the administrative authority may base its FMD control measures also on results obtained by a laboratory which is not listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC — by the results of the latter laboratory, or does the determination of final authority in that regard fall within the procedural autonomy of the Member State and must the court before which the main proceedings are pending examine whether the rules in that respect apply irrespective of whether the laboratory examination is carried out by virtue of a Community or national legal obligation and of whether or not the application of the provisions of national procedural law renders the implementation of the Community rules extremely difficult or practically impossible?

               6.

               If the answer to Question 5 means that the issue of whether national authorities are bound by the laboratory result is governed by Directive 85/511/EEC:
               Are the national authorities bound unconditionally by the result of an FMD examination carried out by a laboratory? If not, what margin of discretion does Directive 85/511/EEC leave these national authorities?

      (1)  Council Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 introducing Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (OJ 1985 L 315, p. 11).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 14 January 1997 in Case C-124/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal): The Queen, ex parte: Centro-Com Srl v. HM Treasury and Bank of England (Foreign and security policy - Common commercial policy - Blocking of funds - Sanctions against the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro)

text:
No C 74/2            | EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8 . 3 . 97
     insertion of the sponsor's name or logo at times other               national of Member State B from that latter State to
     than the beginning and/or the end of the programme.                  Serbia or Montenegro on the ground that Member
                                                                          State A allows payment for such exports to be made
                                                                          only if the exports take place from its own territory
(') OJ No C 386, 31 . 12 . 1994, and                                      and they have been authorized by its own competent
    OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .                                           authorities pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1432/92,
                                                                          when the goods in question have been classified by the
                                                                          United Nations Sanctions Committee as products
                                                                          intended for strictly medical purposes and the
                                                                          competent authorities of Member State B have issued
                                                                          export authorizations for them in accordance with
                                                                          Regulation (EEC) No 1432/92 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                     2 . National measures which prove to be contrary to the
                                                                          common commercial policy provided for in Article 113
                       of 14 January 1997                                 of the Treaty and to the Community Regulations
                                                                          implementing that policy are justified under Article 234
in Case C-124/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 of the EEC Treaty only if they are necessary to ensure
the Court of Appeal ): The Queen, ex parte: Centro-Com                    that the Member State concerned performs its
         Sri v. HM Treasury and Bank of England (')                       obligations towards non-member countries under an
                                                                          agreement concluded prior to entry into force of the
(Foreign and security policy — Common commercial                          Treaty or prior to accession by that Member State.
policy — Blocking of funds — Sanctions against the
             Republics of Serbia and Montenegro)                     H OJ No C 174, 8 . 7. 1995 .
                           ( 97/C 74/02 )
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 14 January 1997
In Case C-124/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Court of Appeal ( England and                in Case C-169/95 : Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of
Wales ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                           the European Communities (')
before that court between the Queen, ex parte: Centro               (State aids — Aid for the construction of a steel foundry
Com Sri, and HM Treasury and Bank of England on the                                 in the Province of Teruel, Spain)
interpretation of Articles 113 and 234 of the EC Treaty
and Council Regulation (EEC ) No 1432/92 of 1 June                                             ( 97/C 74/03 )
1992 prohibiting trade between the European Economic
Community and the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
( OJ No L 151 , 3 . 6 . 1992, p. 4 ), — the Court composed
of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida and J. L. Murray, Presidents of
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), Advocate
General; F. G. Jacobs, Registrar: H. A. Riihl, Principal
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
Administrar, has given a judgment on 14 January 1997, in
which it rules :                                                     In Case C-169/95 : Kingdom of Spain ( Agents: Alberto
                                                                     Jose Navarro Gonzalez and Gloria Calvo Diaz ) v.
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities ( Agents:
                                                                     Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz and Paul Nemitz ) —
1 . The common commercial policy provided for in                     application for annulment of Commission Decision
     Article 113 of the EEC Treaty, as implemented by                95/438/EC of 14 March 1995 concerning investment aid
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 1432/92 of 1 June 1992              granted by Spain to the company Piezas y Rodajes SA, a
    prohibiting trade between the European Economic                  steel foundry located in Teruel province (Aragon ), Spain
     Community and the Republics of Serbia and                       ( OJ No L 257, 27. 10 . 1995 , p. 45 ), — the Court,
     Montenegro and by Council Regulation (EEC)                      composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, J. C.
     No 2603/69 of 20 December 1969 establishing                     Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray and L. Sevon,
     common rules for exports, precludes Member State A              Presidents of Chambers, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
    from adopting, for the purpose of ensuring effective             D. A. O. Edward, J.-P- Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), G.
     application of United Nations Security Council                  Hirsch, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; Advocate
     Resolution 757 (1992) measures prohibiting Serbian              General : G. Tesauro; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
     or Montenegran funds located in its territory from              for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 January
     being released in order to pay for goods exported by a          1997, in which it:


title: Case C-504/15: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Antonio Paolo Conti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gaming — National legislation — Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates — New call for tenders — Licences for a shorter term than that of the former licences — Transfer, free of charge, of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned constituting the network for the management and collection of bets — Restriction — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Proportionality)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/12

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Antonio Paolo Conti
   (Case C-504/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gaming - National legislation - Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates - New call for tenders - Licences for a shorter term than that of the former licences - Transfer, free of charge, of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned constituting the network for the management and collection of bets - Restriction - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 270/15)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Frosinone

      Criminal proceedings against

   Antonio Paolo Conti

      Operative part of the order

   Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a licensee of a betting and gambling service to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.


title: Case T-549/12: Order of the General Court of 3 September 2013 — Nemeco v OHIM — Coca-Cola (NU)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/30

         Order of the General Court of 3 September 2013 — Nemeco v OHIM — Coca-Cola (NU)
   (Case T-549/12) (1)

   2013/C 336/65
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court of 14 December 2000 in Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank 's-Gravenhage and the Hoge Raad Der Nederlanden): Parfums Christian Dior SA v Tuk Consultancy BV (C-300/98), and Assco Gerüste GmbH and Rob van Dĳk, trading as "Assco Holland Steigers Plettac Nederland" v Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co. KG and Layher BV C-392/98 (Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation — TRIPs Agreement — Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) — Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice — Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement — Provisional measures — Interpretation — Direct effect)

text:
21.4.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 118/7
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          particular Article 177 thereof (now Article 234 EC), the Court
                                                                                of Justice has jurisdiction to interpret Article 50 of the TRIPs
                       of 14 December 2000                                       Agreement.
                                                                           2.    In a field to which the TRIPs Agreement applies and in respect
in Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98 (references for a                          of which the Community has already legislated, the judicial
preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank                             authorities of the Member States are required by virtue of
’s-Gravenhage and the Hoge Raad Der Nederlanden):                                Community law, when called upon to apply national rules with
Parfums Christian Dior SA v Tuk Consultancy BV                                   a view to ordering provisional measures for the protection of
(C-300/98), and Assco Gerüste GmbH and Rob van Dijk,                             rights falling within such a field, to do so as far as possible in
trading as ‘Assco Holland Steigers Plettac Nederland’                            the light of the wording and purpose of Article 50 of the TRIPs
v Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co. KG and Layher BV                                     Agreement.
                             (C-392/98) (1)
                                                                                In a field in which the Community has not yet legislated and
(Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation —                           which consequently falls within the competence of the Member
TRIPs Agreement — Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now                              States, the protection of intellectual property rights, and
Article 234 EC) — Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice —                         measures adopted for that purpose by the judicial authorities,
Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement — Provisional measures                         do not fall within the scope of Community law. Accordingly,
                — Interpretation — Direct effect)                                Community law neither requires nor forbids that the legal order
                                                                                of a Member State should accord to individuals the right to rely
                                                                                directly on the rule laid down by Article 50(6) of the TRIPs
                           (2001/C 118/10)                                       Agreement or that it should oblige the courts to apply that rule
                                                                                of their own motion.
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                         3.    Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement leaves to the Contracting
                                                                                Parties, within the framework of their own legal systems, the
                                                                                task of specifying whether the right to sue under general
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           provisions of national law concerning wrongful acts, in particu-
                    in the European Court Reports)                               lar unlawful competition, in order to protect an industrial
                                                                                design against copying is to be classified as an ‘Intellectual
In Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98: references to the                         property right’ within the meaning of Article 50(1) of the
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article                            TRIPs Agreement.
234 EC) from the Arrondissementsrechtbank ’s-Gravenhage
(Netherlands) (C-300/98) and the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden                 (1) OJ C 229 of 26.9.1998.
(Netherlands) (C-392/98) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before those courts between Parfums
Christian Dior SA and Tuk Consultancy BV (C-300/98) and
between Assco Gerüste GmbH and Rob van Dijk, trading as
‘Assco Holland Steigers Plettac Nederland’, and Wilhelm Layher
GmbH & Co. KG and Layher BV (C-392/98) — on the
interpretation of Article 50 of the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, as set out in Annex 1 C                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation,
approved on behalf of the Community, as regards matters
within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of                                           of 14 December 2000
22 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 1) — the Court,
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,              in Case C-344/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of                   the Supreme Court (Ireland)): Masterfoods Ltd v HB Ice
Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,                   Cream Ltd and HB Ice Cream Ltd v Masterfoods Ltd,
P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges;                                        trading as ‘Mars Ireland’ (1)
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December 2000, in                    (Competition — Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now
which it has ruled:                                                        Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) — Parallel proceedings before
                                                                                national and Community courts)
1.    Where the judicial authorities of the Member States are called
      upon to order provisional measures for the protection of
      intellectual property rights falling within the scope of the                                   (2001/C 118/11)
      Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
      Rights (the TRIPs Agreement), as set out in Annex 1 C to
      the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation,                                  (Language of the case: English)
      approved on behalf of the Community, as regards matters
      within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of              In Case C-344/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
      22 December 1994, and a case is brought before the Court of          the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Supreme Court
      Justice in accordance with. the provisions of the EC Treaty, in      (Ireland) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending


title: Case C-194/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Susanne Gassmayr v Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und Forschung (Social policy — Directive 92/85/EEC — Introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding — Articles 5(3) and 11(1) to (3) — Direct effect — Pregnant worker granted leave during her pregnancy — Worker on maternity leave — Right to payment of an on-call duty allowance)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Susanne Gassmayr v Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und Forschung
   (Case C-194/08) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 92/85/EEC - Introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - Articles 5(3) and 11(1) to (3) - Direct effect - Pregnant worker granted leave during her pregnancy - Worker on maternity leave - Right to payment of an on-call duty allowance)
   2010/C 234/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Susanne Gassmayr

      Defendant: Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und Forschung

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 11(1), (2) and (3) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1) — Direct effect — Right of a female worker, during periods when pregnant workers are prohibited from working and/or during maternity leave, to a non-flat-rate allowance for on-call duty outside normal working hours (‘Journaldienstzulage’).

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 11(1) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) has direct effect and gives rise, for the benefit of individuals, to rights which they can rely on against a Member State which has failed to implement that directive in national law or has implemented it incorrectly, and which the national courts are required to protect;

               2.

               Article 11(1) of Directive 92/85 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that a pregnant worker temporarily granted leave from work on account of her pregnancy is entitled to pay equivalent to the average earnings she received during a reference period prior to the beginning of her pregnancy with the exception of the on-call duty allowance;

               3.

               Article 11(2) and (3) of Directive 92/85 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that a worker on maternity leave is entitled to pay equivalent to the average earnings she received during a reference period prior to the beginning of her maternity leave with the exception of the on-call duty allowance.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


title: Case C-228/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg lodged on 19 May 2006 — Mehmet Soysal, Cengiz Salkim, Ibrahim Savatli v Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Joined party: Bundesagentur für Arbeit

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg lodged on 19 May 2006 — Mehmet Soysal, Cengiz Salkim, Ibrahim Savatli v Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Joined party: Bundesagentur für Arbeit
   (Case C-228/06)
   (2006/C 190/13)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Mehmet Soysal, Cengiz Salkim, Ibrahim Savatli

      Respondent: Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany)

      Joined party: Bundesagentur für Arbeit (Federal Republic of Germany)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 November 1970 (1) to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey to be interpreted in such a way that it constitutes a restriction on freedom to provide services if a Turkish national who works in international transport for a Turkish undertaking as a driver of a lorry registered in Germany has to be in possession of a Schengen visa to enter Germany under Paragraph 4(1) and Paragraph 6 of the Aufenthaltsgesetz (German law on residence) of 30 July 2004 and Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (2) even though on the date on which the Additional Protocol entered into force he was permitted to enter the Federal Republic of Germany without a visa?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, should Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol be interpreted as meaning that the Turkish nationals mentioned in (1) do not require a visa to enter Germany?

      (1)  JO 1972 L 293, p.4.

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 81, p.1.