title: Case T-135/08: Action brought on 4 April 2008 — Schniga v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) — Elaris and Brookfield New Zealand (Gala-Schnitzer)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/32

         Action brought on 4 April 2008 — Schniga v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) — Elaris and Brookfield New Zealand (Gala-Schnitzer)
   (Case T-135/08)
   (2008/C 142/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Schniga Srl (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by G. Würtenberger, lawyer and R. Kunze, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SNC Elaris (Angers, France) and Brookfield New Zealand Ltd (Havelock North, New Zealand)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Board of Appeal of 21 November 2007 in cases A-003/2007 and A-004/2007; and

               —

               order CPVO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for Community plant variety rights: Konsortium Südtiroler Baumschuler, following the transfer of the variety at issue, Schniga Srl (Application No 1999/0033)

      Community plant variety right sought for: Gala-Schnitzer

      Decision of the CPVO: Community plant variety right granted (Decisions No EU 18759, OBJ 06-021 and OBJ 06-022)

      Appeal before the Board of Appeal lodged by: SNC Elaris and Brookfield New Zealand Ltd

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the CPVO

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 59(3) of Council Regulation No 2100/94 (1) as the objections to the Community plant variety right do not comply with the said provision; the disputed decision is based on requirements to be fulfilled by the applicant beyond the legislative framework; the power and discretion of the President of CPVO have been wrongly assessed.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/1994 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1).


title: Case T-173/09: Order of the General Court of 3 June 2010 — Z v Commission (Access to documents — Inadmissibility — Injunction)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/38

         Order of the General Court of 3 June 2010 — Z v Commission
   (Case T-173/09) (1)

   (Access to documents - Inadmissibility - Injunction)
   2010/C 209/59
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Z (Hannoversch Münden, Germany) (represented by: C. Grau and N. Jäger, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, V. Bottka and R. Sauer, agents)

      Re:

   Require the Commission, first, to indicate to the applicant, by granting it access the file of the procedure in Case COMP/39.406 (Tuyaux marins) and in particular by making available a copy of Commission's decision of 28 January 2009 imposing a fine, if the applicant is mentioned by name in that decision and, if so, to state the context in which its name is mentioned, second, to remove, in a manner to be specified after the granting of access to the file, the mention of its name in the Commission's decision of 28 January 2009 and, third, not to mention it by name and refrain from making any reference to its name in the non-confidential version of the decision of 28 January 2009.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismissed the action as inadmissible.

               2.

               Orders Z to pay the costs, including those of the application for interim measures

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


title: Case T-314/09: Action brought on 6 August 2009 — Intercéréales and Grossi v Commission

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/14

         Action brought on 6 August 2009 — Intercéréales and Grossi v Commission
   (Case T-314/09)
   2009/C 244/24
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Intercéréales (Paris, France) and Alain Grossi (Nîmes, France) (represented by: B. Le Bret and L. Olza Moreno, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final (1) of 10 December 2008 in which the Commission found that the umbrella scheme likely to be run by the inter-branch organisations of French farmers (organisations interprofessionnelles agricoles françaises), consisting in aids for technical assistance; for the production and marketing of high-quality agricultural products; for research and development, and for advertising which promotes primary producers and undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products, financed by voluntary levies made compulsory by way of ministerial decree, levied on members of those inter-branch organisations, constitutes State aid which is compatible with the common market.
   The pleas and principal submissions relied upon by the applicants are substantially the same as, or similar to, those put forward in the context of Case T-293/09 CNIEL v Commission.

      (1)  OJ 2009 C 116, p. 14


title: Case T-556/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Royalton Overseas v OHIM — S.C. Romarose Invest (KAISERHOFF) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark KAISERHOFF — Earlier national word mark KAISERHOFF — Suspension of the administrative proceedings — Rules 20 and 50 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — ‘Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion’ — Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Royalton Overseas v OHIM — S.C. Romarose Invest (KAISERHOFF)
      (Case T-556/12) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark KAISERHOFF - Earlier national word mark KAISERHOFF - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Rules 20 and 50 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - ‘Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion’ - Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2015/C 016/54)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Royalton Overseas Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Năstase, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: S.C. Romarose Invest Srl (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: R.-G. Dragomir and G.-L. Ilie, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 October 2012 (Case R 2535/2011-1) concerning opposition proceedings between S.C. Romarose Invest Srl and Royalton Overseas Ltd.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 October 2012 (Case R 2535/2011-1) concerning opposition proceedings between S.C. Romarose Invest Srl and Royalton Overseas Ltd;

                  2)

                  Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Royalton Overseas, including those necessarily incurred by Royalton Overseas for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM;

                  3)

                  Orders S.C. Romarose Invest to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Royalton Overseas, including those necessarily incurred by Royalton Overseas for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Case C-541/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Douane Advies Bureau Rietveld v Hauptzollamt Hannover (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union and common customs tariff — Tariff classification — Heading 3822 — Concept of ‘diagnostic or laboratory reagents’  — Indicators of exposure to a predetermined target temperature)

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/12

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Douane Advies Bureau Rietveld v Hauptzollamt Hannover
   (Case C-541/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union and common customs tariff - Tariff classification - Heading 3822 - Concept of ‘diagnostic or laboratory reagents’ - Indicators of exposure to a predetermined target temperature))
   (2014/C 439/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Douane Advies Bureau Rietveld

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

      Operative part of the judgment

   Heading 3822 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex 1 to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that temperature indicators, such as the products marketed under the names ‘WarmMark’ and ‘ColdMark’, which, by the effect of a change in colour caused by the variation in volume of the liquids that they contain, indicate, irreversibly, whether a temperature higher or lower than a specified threshold has been reached, are not covered by that heading.

      (1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.


title: Joined Cases C-401/12 P to C-403/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 January 2015 — Council of the European Union, European Parliament, European Commission v Vereniging Milieudefensie, Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht (Appeals — Directive 2008/50/EC — Directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe — Decision regarding the notification by the Kingdom of the Netherlands of the postponement of the deadline for attaining the limit values for nitrogen dioxide and the exemption from the obligation to apply the limit values for particulate matter (PM10) — Request for internal review of that decision, submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Commission decision declaring the request inadmissible — Measure of individual scope — Aarhus Convention — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 in the light of that convention)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/2

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 January 2015 — Council of the European Union, European Parliament, European Commission v Vereniging Milieudefensie, Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht
      (Joined Cases C-401/12 P to C-403/12 P) (1)

      (Appeals - Directive 2008/50/EC - Directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe - Decision regarding the notification by the Kingdom of the Netherlands of the postponement of the deadline for attaining the limit values for nitrogen dioxide and the exemption from the obligation to apply the limit values for particulate matter (PM10) - Request for internal review of that decision, submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Commission decision declaring the request inadmissible - Measure of individual scope - Aarhus Convention - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 in the light of that convention)
      (2015/C 073/02)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Appellants: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and K. Michoel, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and G. Corstens, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, P. Oliver, P. Van Nuffel, G. Valero Jordana and S. Boelaert, acting as Agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Vereniging Milieudefensie, Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht (represented by: A. van den Biesen, advocaat)

         Intervener in support of the appellants: Czech Republic (represented by: D. Hadroušek, acting as Agent)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Dismisses the cross-appeal;

                  2)

                  Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v Commission (T-396/09, EU:T:2012:301);

                  3)

                  Dismisses the application for annulment lodged by Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht before the General Court of the European Union;

                  4)

                  Orders Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht to pay jointly and severally the costs incurred at first instance and in the appeals by the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the European Commission;

                  5)

                  Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.


title: Case T-180/99: Action brought on 6 August 1999 by Vassilios Tsarnavas against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.10.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 281/29
Action brought on 6 August 1999 by the company                            Action brought on 6 August 1999 by Vassilios Tsarnavas
Sud Pesca against the Commission of the European                            against the Commission of the European Communities
                          Communities
                                                                                (Case T-180/99)
                         (Case T-179/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 281/55)
                         (1999/C 281/54)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 6 August 1999 by Vassilios
                                                                          Tsarnavas, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
European Communities on 6 August 1999 by the company
Sud Pesca, represented by Gianfranco Amenta and Massimo
Merola, of the Palermo and Rome Bars, with an address for                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Alain Lorang, 51
Rue Albert 1er.
                                                                          — annul the implicit decision of the Commission rejecting
                                                                              the complaint lodged by the applicant under Article 90(2)
                                                                              of the Staff Regulations by which he contested first, the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   implicit rejection of his request for rectification of his
                                                                              administrative status as regards the date on which the
— annul the contested decision;                                               Commission’s decision concerning his reassignment took
                                                                              effect, and, second, the list of officials promoted to grade
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the present                        A 4, published in ‘Administrative Notices’ No 1049 of
    action, including the applicant’s legal costs.                            30 October 1998, in which his name did not appear;
                                                                          — consequently, order that the 1998 procedure for pro-
                                                                              motion to grade A 4 is to be annulled as regards the
                                                                              applicant;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The applicant contests the decision of 24 April 1999, Ref.
SG(99)D/2842, by which the Commission rejected an appli-
cation for exemption from post-clearance recovery, alterna-               Pleas in law and main arguments
tively, for remission, of customs duties relating to two
consignments of tuna imported from Turkey under IM4
certificates nos 356/N dated 22 June 1994 and 193/U dated                 The applicant, a grade A 5 official of the Commission of the
29 May 1995.                                                              European Communities, was seconded, as Vice-President of
                                                                          the local Staff Committee, from DG IV to the Staff Represen-
                                                                          tation unit attached to DG IX. On 2 July 1997 the Commission
In support of its claim, the applicant argues that the Com-               decided to reassign the applicant to DG IV with retroactive
mission breached and wrongly applied Article 220(2)(b)                    effect from 1 May 1997. That decision was not notified to the
and Article 239 of the Community Customs Code. In this                    applicant until 21 October 1997, on which date he resumed
connection, the applicant is of the view that the Turkish                 his duties in DG IV. On 30 October 1998 the administration
authorities, even after the checks carried out by the Community           published in ‘Administrative Notices’ No 1049 the list of
delegation in June 1996, confirmed the validity of the ATR.1              officials promoted to grade A 4, in which the applicant’s name
certificates issued. Even if it were possible that those authorities      did not appear.
issued the certificates of origin in error, such an error could be
characterised as being a ‘substantive error’.
                                                                          In support of his application, the applicant advances the
                                                                          following pleas:
The applicant maintains, inter alia, that there is in the present
                                                                          — absence of a statement of reasons;
case a ‘special situation’ and that no fraud or obvious
negligence can be imputed to it.
                                                                          — delay on the part of the Commission in sending to the
                                                                              applicant the decision concerning his reassignment;
                                                                          — breach of the principle of non-retroactivity and misuse of
                                                                              powers;
 ---pagebreak--- C 281/30               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2.10.1999
— failure to comply with the duty to have regard for the                  — annul and/or declare void the call for tenders, the invitation
    welfare and interests of officials;                                        and consequently the whole selection procedure, or, in any
                                                                               event, annul the procedure itself and/or declare it void,
— prejudice caused to the applicant as a result of his
    secondment to the Staff Representation unit, contrary to
    Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations.
                                                                          in the alternative:
By adopting a reassignment decision having retroactive effect,
when there was no justification or need for such retroactivity            — establish and declare the Commission to be liable for the
and when that retroactivity did not correspond to the situation                losses and damage sufered by the applicant by reason of
in reality, and by attaching to that decision an artificial date on            and, in any event, as a result of its participation in the
which it was to come into effect, being 4 days prior to the                    procedure.
crucial date, the Commission indubitably caused the applicant
to suffer damage.
For the purposes of the 1998 promotion procedure, therefore,
the applicant was no longer attached to the Staff Represen-               Pleas in law and main arguments
tation unit, whereas, if the reassignment had officially taken
effect after 5 May 1997, he would have been certain, in the
context of the 1998 promotion procedure, of being promoted
by DG IX or, failing that, at least of being awarded priority             The applicant in this case is the research centre which devised
points which DG IV would have had to take into account                    the ‘PROSCAP’ project to support active citizenship in the
the following year. Consequently, the Commission failed to                Pisa area, submitted as number 15 under the European
comply with its duty to have regard for the welfare and                   Commission’s pilot action ‘Local capital for social purposes’.
interests of officials and perpetrated a manifest misuse of               By the contested decision the defendant rejected the project
powers.                                                                   claiming to have calculated that the operating costs of the
                                                                          ‘initial tender’ were more than 20 % of the total budget,
                                                                          contrary to the requirements of the rules applicable.
By failing to give reasons for the implicit decisions which it
adopted rejecting the applicant’s request and complaint, the
Commission infringed Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
                                                                          In support of its claims the applicant submits that the operating
                                                                          costs of the project are not more than 18 % of the total amount
                                                                          of the budget requested. It is claimed in that connection that
                                                                          the Commission adopted the contested decision on the basis
                                                                          of irrelevant economic data deriving from the application file,
                                                                          thus breaching established rules for the tendering procedure.
                                                                          The defendant therefore excluded the applicant, erroneously
Action brought on 9 August 1999 by Centro di Ricerca e                    taking as the basis for its assessment of the final figure, not the
Documentazione Febbraio 74 against the Commission of                      project completed on 5 March 1999, but the application file
                  the European Communities                                submitted on 15 October 1999, which had the different
                                                                          purpose and object of providing the Commission with infor-
                        (Case T-181/99)                                   mation about the professional and financial suitability of the
                                                                          applicant body, the socio-economic background against which
                                                                          the project would be carried out and the possible quality
                        (1999/C 281/56)                                   of the mechanism proposed for the selection, control and
                                                                          management of individual appropriations.
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 On this basis the applicant maintains that the contested
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                decision must be considered flawed and unlawful for breach
European Communities on 9 August 1999 by Centro di                        of procedural rules and of the duty of care in administrative
Ricerca e Documentazione Febbraio 74, represented by Ugo                  proceedings, erroneous, illogical and not in conformity with
Mastelloni, of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in               previous acts and decisions of the Commission itself.
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Yves Prussen, 2, Place
Winston Churchill.
                                                                          It also submits that the invitation to tender and to submit
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               proposals under the pilot action ‘Local capital for social
                                                                          purposes’ did not in any way stipulate that possible flaws in
— annul and/or declare void the decision of the European                  the application file could constitute reasons for excluding one
    Commission — DG V — Employment and European                           of the tenderers from the procedure.
    Social Fund — Political development and coordination
    under Article 6 of the ESF, notified by formal letter 8096
    of 21 June 1999 to exclude the applicant from the
    tendering procedure for the pilot action ‘Local capital for
    social purposes’, and all connected and consequential acts
    prejudicial to the interests of the applicant,


title: Case C-403/13: Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland — Ireland) — Lisa Kelly v Minister for Social Protection

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland — Ireland) — Lisa Kelly v Minister for Social Protection
   (Case C-403/13) (1)

   2014/C 102/49
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case T-90/03: Action brought on 6 March 2003 by Fédération des Industries Condimentaires de France and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 112/40              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        10.5.2003
Action brought on 6 March 2003 by Fédération des                               Économique Agricole Régional Fruits et Légumes de
Industries Condimentaires de France and Others against                         Bretagne and EUR 1 641 666 per year for the Comité
      the Commission of the European Communities                               Interprofessionnel des Palmipèdes à Foie Gras, or any
                                                                               other amount which the Court may deem appropriate or
                                                                               as may be increased in the course of proceedings;
                         (Case T-90/03)
                                                                         —     order the Commission to compensate the applicants
                        (2003/C 112/76)                                        (including their members) for the non-material damage
                                                                               suffered as a result of the decision adopted on 9 July
                                                                               2002 (and until the applicants’ products are removed
                  (Language of the case: French)                               from the list of American measures), amounting to
                                                                               EUR 200 000 for each of the four applicants (harm to
                                                                               their image in the United States) and EUR 200 000 for
                                                                               each of the four applicants (harm to their credibility), or
                                                                               any other amount which the Court may deem appropriate
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      or as may be increased in the course of proceedings.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 March 2003 by the Fédération
des Industries Condimentaires de France, established in Paris,           —     order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
the Confédération Générale des Producteurs de Lait de Brebis
et des Industriels de Roquefort, established in Millau (France),
the Comité Économique Agricole Régional Fruits et Légumes
de Bretagne, established in St-Martin-des-Champs (France) and
the Comité Interprofessionnel des Palmipèdes à Foie Gras,
established in Paris, represented by Michel-Jean Jacquot and
Olivier Prost, lawyers.                                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                         The purpose of the present application is to seek compensation
                                                                         for the damage allegedly caused by the Commission’s purport-
—    order the Commission to compensate the applicants                   ed failure to take action in the face of retaliatory measures
     (including their members who have suffered damage) for              taken by the United States of America in the context of the
     the material damage suffered in the period from 29 July             WTO following the adoption by the Community of legislation
     1999 to 9 July 2002, amounting to EUR 9 805 251 for                 prohibiting the importation of certain substances having a
     the Fédération des Industries Condimentaires de France,             hormonal action (1). Those measures are applied selectively.
     EUR 5 190 000 for the Confédération Générale des                    Thus, so far as concerns mustard, Roquefort cheese, shallots
     Producteurs de Lait de Brebis et des Industriels de                 and foie gras (with which the present application is concerned),
     Roquefort, EUR 33 451 860 for the Comité Économique                 the United States measures applied to all the Member States
     Agricole Régional Fruits et Légumes de Bretagne and                 except the United Kingdom.
     EUR 4 925 000 for the Comité Interprofessionnel des
     Palmipèdes à Foie Gras, or any other amount which the
     Court may deem appropriate or as may be increased in
     the course of proceedings;
                                                                         The Commission’s failure to take action arises from its decision
                                                                         terminating the examination procedures concerning obstacles
—    order the Commission to compensate the applicants                   to trade, within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC)
     (including their members) for the non-material damage               No 3286/94, consisting of trade practices maintained by the
     suffered in the period from 29 July 1999 to 9 July                  United States of America in relation to imports of prepared
     2002, amounting to EUR 200 000 for each of the four                 mustard ( 2). The applicants have brought an action (3) for the
     applicants, or any other amount which the Court may                 annulment of that decision.
     deem appropriate or as may be increased in the course of
     proceedings;
—    order the Commission to compensate the applicants                   The applicants take the view that the non-contractual liability
     (including their members who have suffered damage) for              of the Commission is incurred as a result of:
     the material damage suffered as a result of the decision
     adopted on 9 July 2002 (and until the applicants’
     products are removed from the list of American                      —     its failure to take action following the adoption by the
     measures), amounting to EUR 3 268 417 per year for the                    United States of the measures in issue. They plead in that
     Fédération des Industries Condimentaires de France,                       respect infringement of Articles 113 and 211 EC, stating
     EUR 1 730 000 per year for the Confédération Générale                     that, by its inaction, the Commission tacitly approved the
     des Producteurs de Lait de Brebis et des Industriels de                   United States measures, thus also putting in question the
     Roquefort, EUR 11 150 620 per year for the Comité                         logic itself of the common commercial policy;
 ---pagebreak--- 10.5.2003                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 112/41
—      the adoption of its decision of 9 July 2002. In that                 mitted a further infringement of Article&nbsp:81(1) EC inas-
       respect, the applicants refer to the pleas in law and                much as they had participated, in the period from February
       arguments put forward in Case T-317/02, cited above.1                1993 to November 1996, in agreements and concerted
                                                                            practices in the extruded specialty graphite sector. By the
                                                                            contested decision, the defendant imposed on the applicant a
( 1) See, in particular, Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996        fine of EUR 18.94 million for the isostatically pressed specialty
     concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain       graphite sector and a fine of EUR 8.81 million for the extruded
     substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of ß-           specialty graphite sector.
     agonists, and repealing Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and
     88/299/EEC (OJ 1996 L 125, p. 3).
( 2) OJ 2002 L 195, p. 72.
( 3) Case T-317/02 (OJ 2002 C 323, p. 37).                                  The applicant relies on five pleas in law:
                                                                            —     Breach of the principle of non bis in idem and the
                                                                                principle of proportionality. The applicant argues that the
                                                                                defendant infringed the prohibition of double jeopardy
                                                                                inasmuch as it failed to take into consideration in its
                                                                                decision the fines already imposed in North America on
                                                                                the international part of the cartel, and inasmuch as it
Action brought on 10 March 2003 by SGL Carbon AG                                  carried out a second administrative-fine proceeding
   against the Commission of the European Communities                             against, among others, the applicant in the graphite
                                                                                electrode sector. In the alternative, the applicant argues
                            (Case T-91/03)                                        that, even if a second proceeding might have been
                                                                                lawful, the defendant should nevertheless have taken into
                                                                                account the fines already imposed when determining the
                           (2003/C 112/77)                                        amount of the fine.
                     (Language of the case: German)                         —     Breach of the principle of the right to a fair hearing and
                                                                                of the applicant’s rights of defence. The applicant argues
                                                                                that, in its decision, the defendant surprisingly re-evalu-
                                                                                ated the contributions of LCL and the applicant to the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                         infringement and therefore deprived the applicant of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                        opportunity to state its views on this matter adequately
European Communities on 10 March 2003 by SGL Carbon                               during the administrative proceeding. The defendant also
AG, Wiesbaden (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann and                           appointed case handlers who did not have a sufficient
P. Niggemann, Rechtsanwälte.                                                      command of the German language, with the result that
                                                                                the defendant failed to give full consideration to the
                                                                                applicant’s submissions.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            —     Infringement of essential procedural requirements and of
—      annul the contested decision in so far as the applicant is                 the obligation to state reasons under Article 253 EC
       concerned;                                                                 inasmuch as the defendant took as the basis for its
                                                                                decision incorrect and defective market data.
—      in the alternative, reduce appropriately the amount of the
       fine imposed on the applicant in the contested decision;
                                                                            —     Infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62/
                                                                                EEC on account of allegedly erroneous determination of
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                the fines. The applicant argues that, in determining the
                                                                                fines, the defendant took account of the gravity of the
                                                                                offence in an inadmissible way, wrongly imputed to the
                                                                                applicant the role of a cartel leader, disregarded the upper
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   limit of penalties, failed to take into consideration the
                                                                                applicant’s ability to pay and the supposed absence of
                                                                                any requirement of a deterrent effect, and failed to give
The applicant manufactures various graphite products, includ-                     due recognition to the applicant’s contributions by way
ing ‘specialty graphite’. The defendant complained that the                       of cooperation.
applicant and other manufacturers and distributors of isostatic
specialty graphite had participated in a continuing agreement
and/or concerted practices which affected the market for
isostatic specialty graphite in the European Community and                  The applicant further claims that the interest imposed on the
the European Economic Area. The alleged infringements relate                fine is unlawful.
primarily to the period from July 1993 to February 1998. In
addition, the defendant also alleged that the applicant and
UCAR, another manufacturer of specialty graphite, had com-


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 29 May 1997 in Joined Cases C-282/96 and C-283/96: Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directives 91/157/EEC and 93/86/EEC)

text:
No C 212/6           i EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12 . 7. 97
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                        ( Fifth Chamber)
                                                                      (') OJ No C 294 , 5 . 10 . 1996 .
                        of 29 May 1997
in Joined Cases C-282/96 and C-283/96: Commission of
      the European Communities v. French Republic ( J )
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose
           Directives 91/157/EEC and 93/86/EEC)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( 97/C 212/ 11
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
                 (Language of the case: French)                                                 of 29 May 1997
                                                                            in Case C-3 11/96: Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. French Republic (')
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      Directive 93/38/EEC — Failure to transpose within the
                                                                                prescribed period)
In Joined Cases C-282/96 and C-283/96 : Commission of                                             ( 97IC 212/ 12 )
the European Communities (Agent: G. zur Hausen,
assisted by J. -J. Evrard ) v. French Republic (Agents: C. de
Salins and R. Nadal ) — application for a declaration that,                           (Language of the case: French)
by failing to adopt within the periods prescribed the laws,
regulations and administrative measures necessary to
comply with                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
— Council Directive 91 / 157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on
     batteries and accumulators containing certain                    In Case C-3 11 /96 : Commission of the European
     dangerous substances ( OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 ,              Communities (Agent: Hendrik van Lier) v. French
     p. 38 ), and                                                     Republic (Agents: Catherine de Salins and Philippe
                                                                      Martinet ) — application for a declaration that, by failing
                                                                      to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations
— Commission Directive 93/86/EEC of 4 October 1993                    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     adapting to technical progress Directive 91 /157/EEC             Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993
     ( OJ No L 264, 23 . 10 . 1993 , p. 51 ),                         coordinating the procurement procedures of entities
                                                                      operating in the water, energy, transport and
                                                                      telecommunications sectors ( OJ No L 199 , 9 . 8 . 1993 ,
or by failing to communicate those measures, the French               p. 84 ) and, in the alternative, by failing to inform the
Republic has failed to comply with its obligations under              Commission forthwith of the adoption of such measures,
those Directives — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed              the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber,              under the Directive and in particular Article 45 thereof —
 C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.                   the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini,
Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,               President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris,
 Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                   P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), Judges;
 judgment on 29 May 1997, in which it:                                C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                      given a judgment on 29 May 1997, in which it:
 1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the periods
     prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative               1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     measures necessary to comply with                                     period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                           provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
     — Council Directive 91 /157/EEC of 18 March 1991                      93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the
          on batteries and accumulators containing certain                 procurement procedures of entities operating in the
          dangerous substances, and                                        water, energy, transport and telecommunications
                                                                           sectors, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                           obligations under Article 45 ( 1 ) of that Directive;
     — Commission Directive 93/86/EEC of 4 October
          1993 adapting to technical progress Directive 91 /
          157/EEC,                                                     2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 354, 23 . 11 . 1996 .
      the French Republic has failed to comply with its
      obligations pursuant to Article 11 of Directive 91 /157/
      EEC and Article 7 of Directive 93/86/EEC;


title: Case T-301/04: Action brought on 28 July 2004 by Clearstream Banking Aktiengesellschaft and Clearstream International sociéte anonyme Luxembourg against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/39

         Action brought on 28 July 2004 by Clearstream Banking Aktiengesellschaft and Clearstream International sociéte anonyme Luxembourg against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-301/04)
   (2004/C 262/75)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 July 2004 by Clearstream Banking Aktiengesellschaft, having its registered office in Frankfurt am Main, and Clearstream International sociéte anonyme Luxembourg, having its registered office in Luxembourg, represented by Horst Satzky and Bernhard M. Maassen, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 2 June 2004 addressed to them in Case COMP/38.096 and which: (i) establishes that there was abuse of a dominant market position; and (ii) imposes an obligation to discontinue such abuse; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   By the contested decision the Commission accuses the applicants of breaching Article 82 EC. In the Commission's view the applicants abused a dominant market position by ostensibly refusing for almost two years to provide Euroclear Bank S.A. (‘EB’) with so-called primary clearing and settlement services in respect of German registered shares and by applying price discrimination over five years against EB with regard to the provision of primary clearing and settlement services.
   The applicants dispute that charge and request that the decision be declared void. The applicants' main head of complaint centres on the Commission's assumption that the applicant Clearstream Banking AG (‘CB’) enjoys a dominant position on the relevant market.
   The applicants contend that the negotiations between CB and EB on the processing of securities transactions in respect of German registered shares lasted, not for close on two years, but for nine months at most. The reasons for the length of this period, they argue, lay with EB and not with CB. At no point did CB have an interest in, let alone the intention of, denying to EB services which it provides for other clients.
   The applicants submit further that the fact could not be overlooked during negotiations that the processing of securities transactions in respect of German registered shares had no significance whatever for the exchange of services between CB and EB. In their calculation of prices the applicants followed the principle that comparable clients should be given equal treatment. EB, they submit, is not comparable to the group of clients which the Commission has used as the basis for its charge of discrimination.
   The applicants also contend that the Commission never claimed that Clearstream International S.A. Luxembourg (‘CL’) was an undertaking with a dominant market position. For that reason alone it could not have abused any dominant market position. Furthermore, the objectively relevant market was inaccurately defined in the decision. The applicants take the view that the distinction drawn by the Commission between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ processing services cannot be based on objective grounds and is even contradictory. There is, they argue, only one single objectively relevant market for clearing and settlement. CB does not have a dominant position on this objectively relevant market for all clearing and settlement services. Neither CB nor CI is thus a party to which the rule in Article 82 EC can be addressed. The decision must be quashed in any event on grounds of erroneous market definition and — consequently — of the absence of market domination.


title: Case C-489/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Criminal proceedings against Łukasz Marcin Bonda (Common agricultural policy — Single area payment scheme — Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 — Article 138(1) — Exclusion from receiving aid if the area declared is not correct — Administrative or criminal nature of that penalty — Rule against the overlapping of criminal penalties — Ne bis in idem principle)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Criminal proceedings against Łukasz Marcin Bonda
   (Case C-489/10) (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - Single area payment scheme - Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 - Article 138(1) - Exclusion from receiving aid if the area declared is not correct - Administrative or criminal nature of that penalty - Rule against the overlapping of criminal penalties - Ne bis in idem principle)
   2012/C 217/03
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Party to the main criminal proceedings

   Łukasz Marcin Bonda

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Najwyższy — Interpretation of Article 138 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 of 29 October 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 as regards the support schemes provided for in Titles IV and IVa of that Regulation and the use of land set aside for the production of raw materials (OJ 2004 L 345, p. 1) — Single area payment — Grant of aid excluded if the area declared is incorrect — Administrative or criminal nature of that penalty

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 138(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 of 29 October 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 as regards the support schemes provided for in Titles IV and IVa of that regulation and the use of land set aside for the production of raw materials must be interpreted as meaning that the measures provided for in the second and third subparagraphs of that provision, consisting in excluding a farmer from receiving aid for the year in which he made a false declaration of the eligible area and reducing the aid he can claim within the following three calendar years by an amount corresponding to the difference between the area declared and the area determined, do not constitute criminal penalties.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.


title: Case T-278/14: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Dairek Attoumi v OHIM — Diesel (DIESEL) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design DIESEL — Earlier international word mark DIESEL — Ground for invalidity — Use of a distinctive sign — Likelihood of confusion — Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Proof of genuine use — Stay of the administrative proceedings)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Dairek Attoumi v OHIM — Diesel (DIESEL)
   (Case T-278/14) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design DIESEL - Earlier international word mark DIESEL - Ground for invalidity - Use of a distinctive sign - Likelihood of confusion - Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Proof of genuine use - Stay of the administrative proceedings))
   (2015/C 346/32)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Mansour Dairek Attoumi (Badalona, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño and V. Melgar, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Diesel SpA (Breganze, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica and F. Fischetti, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 February 2014 (Case R 855/2012-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Diesel SpA and Mansour Dairek Attoumi.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mansour Dairek Attoumi to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case C-58/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), lodged on 11 February 2009 — Leo-Libera GmbH v Finanzamt Buchholz in der Nordheide

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), lodged on 11 February 2009 — Leo-Libera GmbH v Finanzamt Buchholz in der Nordheide
   (Case C-58/09)
   2009/C 113/39
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Leo-Libera GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Buchholz in der Nordheide

      Question referred

   Is Article 135(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that Member States are permitted to have a rule under which only specified forms of (race) betting and lotteries are exempt from tax, and all ‘other forms of gambling’ are excluded from the tax exemption?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/33

         Removal from the register of Case C-497/04 (1)

   (2005/C 217/73)

      (Language of the case: Greek)

   By order of 13 June 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-497/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 31 of 5.02.2005.


title: Case T-522/15: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2015 — CCPL and Others v Commission (Interim proceedings — Competition — Retail food packaging — Decision imposing fines — Bank guarantee — Application for a stay of execution — Fumus boni juris — Urgency — Balance of interests)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/20

         Order of the General Court of 15 December 2015 — CCPL and Others v Commission
   (Case T-522/15) (1)

   ((Interim proceedings - Competition - Retail food packaging - Decision imposing fines - Bank guarantee - Application for a stay of execution - Fumus boni juris - Urgency - Balance of interests))
   (2016/C 078/30)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produztione e Lavoro SC (Reggio d'Emilia, Italy), Coopbox group SpA (Reggio d’Emilia), Poliemme Srl (Reggio d’Emilia), Coopbox Hispania, SL (Lorca, Spain), Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. (Nové Mesto nad Váhom, Slovakia) (represented by: S. Bariatti and E. Cucchiara, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: F. Jimeno Fernandez, A. Biolan and P. Rossi, and subsequently by: F. Jimeno Fernandez, P. Rossi and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for a stay of execution of Commission Decision No C(2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.39563 — Retail food packaging), in so far as it requires the applicants to supply a bank guarantee or to make provisional payment of the amount of the fines imposed as a condition for the avoidance of the immediate recovery of that sum.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The obligation on the applicants, CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produztione e Lavoro SC, Coopbox group SpA, Poliemme Srl, Coopbox Hispania, SL and Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. to provide a bank guarantee in favour of the European Commission to avoid the immediate recovery of the fines imposed on them under Article 2 of Commission Decision No C(2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.39563 — Retail food packaging) is suspended, provided that:

                           —

                           within one month from service of this order, then every three months until adoption of the decision in the main proceedings and at each event liable to affect their future capacity to pay the fines imposed, the applicants submit a detailed written report to the Commission on the implementation of the restructuring plan of the CCPL group and on the amount of revenue derived from the sale of its assets both in implementation and ‘outside’ that plan;

                           —

                           the applicants pay the Commission the sum of EUR 5 million as soon as they have obtained the sum from that sale, and the entirety of the revenue derived from the proposed transfer of the interests in Refincoop SpA, Erzelli Energia Srl and Smec Srl, as soon as that revenue has been obtained;

               2.

               The costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Case T-7/17: Action brought on 5 January 2017 — John Mills v EUIPO — Jerome Alexander Consulting (MINERAL MAGIC)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/38

         Action brought on 5 January 2017 — John Mills v EUIPO — Jerome Alexander Consulting (MINERAL MAGIC)
   (Case T-7/17)
   (2017/C 063/50)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: John Mills Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jerome Alexander Consulting Corp. (Surfside, Florida, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MINERAL MAGIC’ — EU trade mark application No 12 151 379

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 in Case R 2087/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party to pay their own costs and those incurred by the applicant.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-163/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 9 April 2015 — Youssef Hassan v Breiding Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 9 April 2015 — Youssef Hassan v Breiding Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH
   (Case C-163/15)
   (2015/C 254/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Youssef Hassan

      Defendant: Breiding Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the first sentence of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (1) preclude a licensee who is not entered in the Register of Community trade marks from invoking claims for infringement of a Community trade mark?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: Does the first sentence of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark preclude a national legal practice in accordance with which the licensee can enforce the trade mark proprietor’s rights against the infringer by virtue of the power conferred on it for that purpose (Prozessstandschaft)?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.


title: Case T-375/15: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2017 — Germanwings v Commission (State aid — Aid for an airline using Zweibrücken airport — Benefit — Whether imputable to the State — Obligation to state reasons — Legitimate expectations — Access to documents — Documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid — Refusal to grant access to the documents requested — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2017 — Germanwings v Commission
   (Case T-375/15) (1)

   ((State aid - Aid for an airline using Zweibrücken airport - Benefit - Whether imputable to the State - Obligation to state reasons - Legitimate expectations - Access to documents - Documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid - Refusal to grant access to the documents requested - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits))
   (2017/C 195/25)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Germanwings GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet, T. Maxian Rusche, R. Sauer and K. Herrman, then by A. Buchet, T. Rusche, K. Herrman and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, first, partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/152 of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA 27339 (12/C) (ex 11/NN) implemented by Germany for Zweibrücken airport and airlines using the airport (OJ 2016 L 34, p. 68), and, second, annulment of Commission Decision GESTDEM 2015/1288 of 11 May 2015 refusing partial access to the administrative file in respect of State Aid procedure SA.27339.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1(2), in so far as it concerns the first agreement concluded between Flughafen Zweibrücken GmbH and Germanwings GmbH, and Article 3(4)(e) of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/152 of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA 27339 (12/C) (ex 11/NN) implemented by Germany for Zweibrücken airport and airlines using the airport (OJ 2016 L 34, p. 68);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of those incurred by Germanwings;

               4.

               Orders Germanwings to bear one quarter of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case C-55/05: Action brought on 9 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/18

         Action brought on 9 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland
   (Case C-55/05)
   (2005/C 82/37)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Huttunen and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 amending the Directives on maritime safety and the prevention of pollution from ships, (1) or at least by not communicating them to the Commission, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The prescribed period for implementing the directive expired on 23 November 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 324 of 29.11.2002, p. 53.


title: Case C-535/03: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  23 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)) — The Queen on the application of Unitymark Ltd and North Sea Fishermen's Organisation v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Fisheries — Cod — Limitation of fishing effort — Open gear beam trawls — Principles of proportionality and non-discrimination)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)) — The Queen on the application of Unitymark Ltd and North Sea Fishermen's Organisation v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
   (Case C-535/03) (1)

   (Fisheries - Cod - Limitation of fishing effort - Open gear beam trawls - Principles of proportionality and non-discrimination)
   (2006/C 131/12)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimants: Unitymark Ltd and North Sea Fishermen's Organisation

      Defendant: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Validity of paragraphs 4(b) and 6(a) of Annex XVII to Council Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 of 20 December 2002 fixing for 2003 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (OJ 2003 L 356, p. 12); Validity of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2003/185/EC of 14 March 2003 on the allocation of additional days absent from port to Member States in accordance with Annex XVII to Council Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 — Compatibility with Articles 28, 29, 33 and 34 EC — Principles of proportionality and non-discrimination — Fundamental freedom to pursue a trade or business
   Operative part of the judgment
   Examination of the question asked has disclosed no factor of such a kind at to affect the validity of:

               —

               paragraphs 4(b) and 6(a) of Annex XVII to Council Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 of 20 December 2002 fixing for 2003 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required;

               —

               paragraphs 4(b) and 6(a) of that annex as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 671/2003 of 10 April 2003;

               —

               Article 1 of Commission Decision 2003/185/EC of 14 March 2003 on the allocation of additional days absent from port to Member States in accordance with Annex XVII to Regulation No 2341/2002.

      (1)  OJ C 47, 21.02.2004.


title: Case T-709/13: Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Steinbeck v OHIM — Alfred Sternjakob (BE HAPPY)

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/15

         Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Steinbeck v OHIM — Alfred Sternjakob (BE HAPPY)
   (Case T-709/13)
   2014/C 61/27
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Steinbeck GmbH (Fulda, Germany) (represented by: M. Heinrich and M. Fischer, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG (Frankenthal, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2013 in Case R 32/2013-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘BE HAPPY’ for goods in Classes 16, 21, 28 and 30 — Community trade mark No 5 310 057

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of that regulation

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was granted

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-451/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 3 October 2007 — Federfarma v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Ministero della Salute

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 3 October 2007 — Federfarma v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Ministero della Salute
   (Case C-451/07)
   (2007/C 297/43)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Federfarma

      Defendants: Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Ministero della Salute
   Questions referred

               1.

               After the provisions contained in Articles 2 and 3 [of Directive 89/105/EC] which modulate the relationship between the public authorities of a Member State and the pharmaceutical companies — by allowing the pricing of a medicinal product or the raising of its price to be determined on the basis of information provided by the [latter], but only in so far as is acceptable to the competent authority, and thus on the basis of dialogue between the undertakings themselves and the authorities competent to supervise pharmaceutical expenditure — Article 4(1) [of that Directive] concerning ‘price freeze[s] imposed on all medicinal products or on certain categories of medicinal products’ characterises a price freeze as a general instrument, the continuing use of which is conditional upon a review which must be carried out, at least once a year, with reference to the macro-economic conditions existing in the Member State in question. That provision allows the competent authorities a period of 90 days in which to take a final decision, requiring them, on expiry of that period, to announce what increases or decreases in prices are being made, if any. On a proper construction of the reference to ‘decreases in prices … being made, if any’, is that provision to be interpreted as meaning that, as well as the general remedy of freezing the prices of all categories, or certain specific categories, of medicinal product, another general remedy may be applied in the form of a reduction in the prices of all categories, and of certain specific categories, of medicinal product, or must ‘decreases …, if any’ be interpreted as referring exclusively to the medicinal products which are already subject to the price freeze?

               2.

               In requiring the competent authorities of a Member State to verify, at least once a year, in the case of price freezes, whether the macroeconomic conditions justify continuing that price freeze, may Article 4(1) [of Directive 89/105/EC] be interpreted as meaning that, if the reply to Question I is that a price reduction is permissible, it is possible to have recourse to such a measure even more than once in the course of a single year, and to do that again for many years (from 2002 until 2010)?

               3.

               Under the terms of Article 4 [of Directive 89/105/EC] — read in the light of the preamble emphasising that the principal aim of measures controlling the prices of medicinal products is ‘the promotion of public health by ensuring the availability of adequate supplies of medicinal products at a reasonable cost’ and preventing ‘disparities in such measures [which] may hinder or distort intra-Community trade in medicinal products’ — is it compatible with the Community rules to adopt measures which refer to economic values attributed to that expenditure on the basis of ‘predictions’ rather than values which have been ‘ascertained’ (this question relates to both situations)?

               4.

               Must the requirements relating to compliance with the ceilings for pharmaceutical expenditure which each Member State is competent to determine be linked, point by point, to pharmaceutical expenditure alone, or is it within the powers of the Member States to take account also of data relating to other health expenditure?

               5.

               Must the principles, to be inferred from … Directive [89/105/EC], of transparency and of shared participation on the part of the undertakings with an interest in measures freezing the prices of pharmaceutical products or reducing them across the board be interpreted as requiring provision to be made, always and in any circumstances, for the possibility of derogation from the price imposed (Article 4(2) [of Directive 89/105/EC]) and for genuine participation by the applicant company, with the consequent need for the administrative authorities to state the reasons for any refusal?


title: Case C-221/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Sam Mc Cauley Chemists (Blackpool) Ltd, Mark Sadja v Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, Minister for Health and Children, Ireland, Attorney General (Directive 85/433/EEC — Mutual recognition of diplomas — Pharmacists — Recognition of diplomas held by pharmacists working in new pharmacies open to the public — Scope of the discretion enjoyed by Member States)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Sam Mc Cauley Chemists (Blackpool) Ltd, Mark Sadja v Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, Minister for Health and Children, Ireland, Attorney General
   (Case C-221/05) (1)

   (Directive 85/433/EEC - Mutual recognition of diplomas - Pharmacists - Recognition of diplomas held by pharmacists working in new pharmacies open to the public - Scope of the discretion enjoyed by Member States)
   (2006/C 224/24)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Supreme Court
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Sam Mc Cauley Chemists (Blackpool) Ltd, Mark Sadja

      Defendants: Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, Minister for Health and Children, Ireland, Attorney General
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court of Ireland — Interpretation of Article 2(1) and (2) of Council Directive 85/433/EEC of 16 September 1985 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in pharmacy, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment relating to certain activities in the field of pharmacy (OJ 1985 L 253, p. 37) — Scope of the discretion enjoyed by Member States in regard to the recognition of diplomas held by pharmacists working in new pharmacies open to the public
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 2 of Council Directive 85/433/EEC of 16 September 1985 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in pharmacy, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment relating to certain activities in the field of pharmacy, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which complies merely with the minimal level of recognition of diplomas laid down by that directive is not exercising any discretion conferred by that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 182, 23.07.2005.


title: Case C-128/06: Action brought on  3 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/9

         Action brought on 3 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-128/06)
   (2006/C 108/15)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani and G. Braun, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2003/124/EC of 22 December 2003 implementing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition and public disclosure of inside information and the definition of market manipulation (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for implementing Directive 2003/124/EC expired on 12 October 2004.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 339, p.70


title: Case C-387/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 8 July 2013 — VAEX Varkens- en Veehandel BV v Productschap Vee en Vlees

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 8 July 2013 — VAEX Varkens- en Veehandel BV v Productschap Vee en Vlees
   (Case C-387/13)
   2013/C 274/16
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: VAEX Varkens- en Veehandel BV

      Respondent: Productschap Vee en Vlees

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the European legislative framework applicable here [ (1)
                   (2)
                   (3)
                   (4)] preclude, in a case such as the present [period of validity of an export licence]:

                           (a)

                           payment of the refund applied for;

                           (b)

                           release of the security lodged in connection with the licence application?

               2.

               If one or both questions is/are answered in the affirmative, does that same framework then preclude ex post facto regularisation, in such a way that the exported quantity can still be entered on the licence and, on that basis, the refund still paid and/or, as the case may be, the security lodged still released?

               3.

               If Question 2 is also answered in the affirmative: is that same framework then invalid in so far as it contains no provision for payment of a refund and/or, as the case may be, release of the security lodged to be granted in a case such as the present, in which use was made of a licence one day too early?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 of 23 April 2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 114, p. 3).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 382/2008 of 21 April 2008 on rules of application for import and export licences in the beef and veal sector (Recast) (OJ 2008 L 115, p. 10).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 of 7 July 2009 on laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (Recast) (OJ 2009 L 186, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 October 2004 in Case C-426/02: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Charges having equivalent effect — Common commercial policy — Imports of goods from Member States and non-member countries — Charges levied for the validation of invoices)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 21 October 2004
   in Case C-426/02: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Charges having equivalent effect - Common commercial policy - Imports of goods from Member States and non-member countries - Charges levied for the validation of invoices)
   (2004/C 300/28)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-426/02: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, lodged at the Court on 22 November 2002 by Commission of the European Communities (Agents: X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis) against Hellenic Republic (Agents: A. Samoni-Rantou and N. Dafniou) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; Advocate General: A. Tizzano; Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on 21 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by applying, for the benefit of the Ethnikos Organismos Farmakon (National Organisation for Medicines), a charge in respect of the validation of invoices on the import of raw materials for pharmaceutical use, semi-finished products and finished products from other Member States or non-member countries, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 23 EC, 25 EC and 133 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 31 of 8.2.2003.


title: Case C-290/03: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  4 May 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords (United Kingdom)) — Diane Barker v London Borough of Bromley (Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Crystal Palace development project — Projects falling within Annex II to Directive 85/337 — Grant of consent comprising more than one stage)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/1

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords (United Kingdom)) — Diane Barker v London Borough of Bromley
   (Case C-290/03) (1)

   (Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Crystal Palace development project - Projects falling within Annex II to Directive 85/337 - Grant of consent comprising more than one stage)
   (2006/C 165/02)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   House of Lords
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Diane Barker

      Defendant: London Borough of Bromley

      Intervener: First Secretary of State
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — House of Lords — Interpretation of Articles 1(2) and 2(1) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — No assessment before the grant of consent for a project likely to have effects on the environment — Obligation to subject the project to subsequent assessment — Development of the Crystal Palace site for leisure purposes
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Classification of a decision as a ‘development consent’ within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment must be carried out pursuant to national law in a manner consistent with Community law.

               2.

               Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Directive 85/337 are to be interpreted as requiring an environmental impact assessment to be carried out if, in the case of grant of consent comprising more than one stage, it becomes apparent, in the course of the second stage, that the project is likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue inter alia of its nature, size or location.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 6.9.2003.


title: Case T-206/06: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2011 — Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for methacrylates — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Rights of the defence — Presumption of innocence — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of equal treatment — Principle that penalties must fit the offence — Principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege — Principle of sound administration — Principle of legal certainty — Misuse of powers — Fines — Attribution of liability for payment within a group of companies)

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2011 — Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission
   (Case T-206/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for methacrylates - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Rights of the defence - Presumption of innocence - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of equal treatment - Principle that penalties must fit the offence - Principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege - Principle of sound administration - Principle of legal certainty - Misuse of powers - Fines - Attribution of liability for payment within a group of companies)
   2011/C 211/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Total and Elf Aquitaine (Courbevoie, France) and Elf Aquitaine SA (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery and S. Thibault-Liger, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially F. Arbault and V. Bottka, subsequently V. Bottka and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Articles 1(c) and (d), 2(b), 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates) and, in the alternative, amendment of Article 2(b) of that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.


title: Case C-247/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — HeidelbergCement AG v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Market for ‘cement and related products’ — Administrative procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 18(1) and (3) — Decision requesting information — Statement of reasons — Clarification of the application)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — HeidelbergCement AG v European Commission
   (Case C-247/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Market for ‘cement and related products’ - Administrative procedure - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 18(1) and (3) - Decision requesting information - Statement of reasons - Clarification of the application))
   (2016/C 156/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: HeidelbergCement AG (represented by: U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz and P. Pichler, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, L. Malferrari and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 March 2014 in HeidelbergCement v Commission (T-302/11, EU:T:2014:128);

               2.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 2361 final of 30 March 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — Cement and related products);

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by HeidelbergCement AG with respect to both the proceedings at first instance in Case T-302/11 and the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.