Joined Cases C-468/06 to C-478/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Athinon — Greece) — Sot. Lelos kai Sia EE (C-468/06), Farmakemporiki AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-469/06), Konstantinos Xidias kai Sia OE (C-470/06), Farmakemporiki AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-471/06), Ionas Stroumsas EPE (C-472/06), Ionas Stroumsas EPE (C-473/06), Farmakapothiki Farma-Group Messinias AE (C-474/06), K.P. Marinopoulos AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-475/06), K.P. Marinopoulos AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-476/06), Kokkoris D. Tsanas K. EPE and Others (C-477/06), Kokkoris D. Tsanas K. EPE and Others (C-478/06) v GlaxoSmithKline AEVE Farmakeftikon Proionton, formerly Glaxowellcome AEVE (Article 82 EC — Abuse of dominant position — Pharmaceutical products — Refusal to supply wholesalers engaging in parallel exports — Ordinary orders)
Date: 2008-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dominant position, export, illicit trade, interpretation of the law, intervention policy, market intervention, pharmaceutical product, restriction on competition, trade regulations, wholesale trade

C 301/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.11.2008

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg —
Interpretation of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-
ment, Article 43 EC) and Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now
Article 48 EC) — Valuation of unlisted shares in limited compa-
nies — Difference between the valuation of a share in a national
partnership and a share in a partnership established in another
Member State

Operative part of the judgment

In the absence of valid justification, Articles 52 of the EEC Treaty
(subsequently Article 52 of the EC Treaty, and now, after amendment,
Article 43 EC) and 58 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 58 of
the EC Treaty, and now Article 48 EC) preclude the application of tax
legislation of a Member State which, for the purposes of valuing the
unlisted shares of a company in circumstances such as those in the
main proceedings, causes that company's holding in a partnership
established in another Member State, subject to the condition that such
a holding is capable of allowing it a definite influence on the decisions
of the partnership established in the other Member State and enabling
it to determine its activities, to be assigned a greater value than its
holding in a partnership established in the Member State concerned.

ground of age in Article 13 EC and Council Directive
2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general
framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation
(OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Occupational pension scheme
(betriebliche Altersversorgung) excluding a right to retirement
pension (Ruhegeld) for a surviving spouse 15 years younger
than the deceased former employee — Application of the prin-
ciple of no discrimination on the ground of age in the absence
of a link to a situation envisaged by other provisions of Com-
munity law

Operative part of the judgment

The application, which the courts of Member States must ensure, of
the prohibition under Community law of discrimination on the ground
of age is not mandatory where the allegedly discriminatory treatment
contains no link with Community law. No such link arises either from
Article 13 EC, or, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main
proceedings,
from Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November
2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employ-
ment and occupation, before the time-limit allowed to the Member
State concerned for its transposition has expired.

(1) OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 September
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
arbeitsgericht — Germany) — Birgit Bartsch v Bosch und
Siemens Hausgeräte (BSH) Altersfürsorge GmbH

(Case C-427/06) (1)

in

and

treatment

occupation —
employment
(Equal
Article 13 EC — Directive 2000/78/EC — Occupational
pension scheme excluding the right to a pension of a spouse
more than 15 years younger
than the deceased former
employee — Age discrimination — Link with Community
law)

(2008/C 301/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Birgit Bartsch

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 September
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio
Athinon — Greece) — Sot. Lelos kai Sia EE (C-468/06),
Farmakemporiki AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon
Proionton (C-469/06), Konstantinos Xidias kai Sia OE
(C-470/06), Farmakemporiki AE Emporias kai Dianomis
Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-471/06), Ionas Stroumsas EPE
(C-472/06),
(C-473/06),
Stroumsas
Farmakapothiki Farma-Group Messinias AE (C-474/06), K.P.
Marinopoulos AE Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon
Proionton (C-475/06), K.P. Marinopoulos AE Emporias kai
Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-476/06), Kokkoris
D. Tsanas K. EPE and Others (C-477/06), Kokkoris D.
Tsanas K. EPE and Others (C-478/06) v GlaxoSmithKline
AEVE Farmakeftikon Proionton, formerly Glaxowellcome
AEVE

Ionas

EPE

(Joined Cases C-468/06 to C-478/06) (1)

(Article 82 EC — Abuse of dominant position — Pharmaceu-
tical products — Refusal to supply wholesalers engaging in
parallel exports — Ordinary orders)

(2008/C 301/11)

Language of the case: Greek

Defendant: Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (BSH) Altersfürsorge
GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesarbeitsgericht —
the principle of no discrimination on the
Interpretation of

Referring court

Efetio Athinon

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/7

Parties to the main proceedings

Stroumsas

Applicants: Sot. Lelos kai Sia EE (C-468/06), Farmakemporiki AE
Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-469/06),
Konstantinos Xidias kai Sia OE (C-470/06), Farmakemporiki AE
Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-471/06),
Ionas
EPE
(C-473/06),
Farma-Group Messinias AE
(C-474/06), K.P. Marinopoulos AE Emporias kai Dianomis
Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-475/06), K.P. Marinopoulos AE
Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton (C-476/06),
Kokkoris D. Tsanas K. EPE and Others (C-477/06), Kokkoris D.
Tsanas K. EPE and Others (C-478/06)

EPE (C-472/06),

Farmakapothiki

Stroumsas

Ionas

Defendant: GlaxoSmithKline AEVE Farmakeftikon Proionton

Re:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A.
Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), nmc SA (represented by: P.
Péters and T. de Haan, avocats)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber) of 10 October 2006 in Case T-172/05 Armacell v
OHIM whereby the Court dismissed an action by the applicant
for the word mark ‘ARMAFOAM’ for goods in Class 20 for
annulment of Decision R 552/2004-1 of the First Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(OHIM) of 23 February 2005 annulling the decision of the
Opposition Division which rejected the opposition brought by
the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘NOMAFOAM’ for
goods in Classes 11, 19, 20, 27 and 28

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Efetio Athinon — Inter-
pretation of Article 82 EC — Abuse of a dominant position —
Refusal of an undertaking holding a dominant position to meet
fully orders placed by pharmaceutical wholesalers, with the
intention of limiting their export activity and, consequently, the
harm caused to it by parallel trade

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

Operative part of the judgment

Article 82 EC must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking
occupying a dominant position on the relevant market for medicinal
products which, in order to put a stop to parallel exports carried out by
certain wholesalers from one Member State to other Member States,
refuses to meet ordinary orders from those wholesalers, is abusing its
dominant position. It is for the national court to ascertain whether the
orders are ordinary in the light of both the size of those orders in rela-
tion to the requirements of the market in the first Member State and
the previous business relations between that undertaking and the
wholesalers concerned.

(1) OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 September
2008 — Armacell Enterprise GmbH v Office
for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs), nmc SA

(Case C-514/06 P) (1)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Application for the
Community word mark ARMAFOAM — Earlier Community
trade mark NOMAFOAM — Relative ground for refusal —
Similarity of the signs — Existence of a relative ground for
refusal in part of the European Community)

(2008/C 301/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Armacell Enterprise GmbH (represented by: O.
Spuhler, Rechtsanwalt)

2. Orders Armacell Enterprise GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 October
the
2008 — Marguerite Chetcuti v Commission of

European Communities

(Case C-16/07 P) (1)

(Appeal — Civil service — Competition internal
to the
institution — Rejection of candidature — Conditions of
admission)

(2008/C 301/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Marguerite Chetcuti
avocat)

(represented by: M.-A. Lucas,

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
the European
Communities (represented by: V. Joris and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of
the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2006 in Case T-357/04
Chetcuti v Commission,
Instance
dismissed the appellant's action for annulment of the decision
of the competition selection board of 22 June 2004 rejecting
her candidature and for annulment of the subsequent acts of the
competition procedure — Infringement of Articles 4, 27

in which the Court of First