title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 January 2005 in Case C-26/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Naumburg): Stadt Halle, RPL Recyclingpark Lochau GmbH v Arbeitsgemeinschaft Thermische Restabfall- und Energieverwertungsanlage TREA Leuna (Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Award with no public call for tenders — Award of the contract to a semi-public undertaking — Judicial protection — Directive 89/665/EEC)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 11 January 2005
   in Case C-26/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Naumburg): Stadt Halle, RPL Recyclingpark Lochau GmbH v Arbeitsgemeinschaft Thermische Restabfall- und Energieverwertungsanlage TREA Leuna (1)

   (Directive 92/50/EEC - Public service contracts - Award with no public call for tenders - Award of the contract to a semi-public undertaking - Judicial protection - Directive 89/665/EEC)
   (2005/C 57/10)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-26/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Oberlandesgericht Naumburg (Higher Regional Court, Naumburg, Germany), made by decision of 8 January 2003, received at the Court on 23 January 2003, in the proceedings between Stadt Halle, RPL Recyclingpark Lochau GmbH and Arbeitsgemeinschaft Thermische Restabfall- und Energieverwertungsanlage TREA Leuna — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, E. Juhász (Rapporteur), M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 January 2005, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               Article 1(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, itself amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation of the Member States to ensure that effective and rapid remedies are available against decisions taken by contracting authorities extends also to decisions taken outside a formal award procedure and decisions prior to a formal call for tenders, in particular the decision on whether a particular contract falls within the personal and material scope of Directive 92/50, as amended. That possibility of review is available to any person having or having had an interest in obtaining the contract in question who has been or risks being harmed by an alleged infringement, from the time when the contracting authority has expressed its will in a manner capable of producing legal effects. The Member States are not therefore authorised to make the possibility of review subject to the fact that the public procurement procedure in question has formally reached a particular stage.

               2.

               Where a contracting authority intends to conclude a contract for pecuniary interest relating to services within the material scope of Directive 92/50, as amended by Directive 97/52, with a company legally distinct from it, in whose capital it has a holding together with one or more private undertakings, the public award procedures laid down by that directive must always be applied.

      (1)  OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.


title: Case C-225/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 22 April 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Mossa Ouhrami

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 22 April 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Mossa Ouhrami
   (Case C-225/16)
   (2016/C 232/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Party to the main proceedings

   Mossa Ouhrami

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 11(2) of the Return Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the period of five years mentioned therein is calculated:

                           a.

                           from the moment at which the entry ban (or, with retroactive effect, the equivalent declaration of undesirability) was issued, or

                           b.

                           with effect from the date on which the person concerned actually left the territory of — essentially — the Member States of the European Union, or

                           c.

                           from some other point in time?

               2.

               Must Article 11(2) of the Return Directive, having regard to the application of transitional law, be interpreted as meaning that decisions taken before that directive entered into force, the legal effect of which is that the addressee must remain outside the Netherlands for ten consecutive years, while the entry ban was determined having regard for all the relevant circumstances of the individual case and was open to challenge on legal grounds, no longer have any legal effect if the duration of that obligation, at the time by which that directive had to be implemented or at the time at which it was established that the person to whom that decision was addressed was present in the Netherlands, exceeded the period provided for in that provision?

      (1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).


title: Case C-98/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Freeport plc v Olle Arnoldsson (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 6(1) — Special jurisdiction — More than one defendant — Legal bases of the actions — Abuse — Likelihood of success of an action brought in the courts for the place where one of the defendants is domiciled)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Freeport plc v Olle Arnoldsson
   (Case C-98/06) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 6(1) - Special jurisdiction - More than one defendant - Legal bases of the actions - Abuse - Likelihood of success of an action brought in the courts for the place where one of the defendants is domiciled)
   (2007/C 297/12)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Högsta domstolen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Freeport plc

      Defendant: Olle Arnoldsson
   Re:
   Interpretation of Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1 — Special jurisdiction — More than one defendant — Actions brought simultaneously concerning an obligation of payment against a legal person before the court in a country where that legal person is established and against the person, established in the territory of another Member State, who undertook that obligation without being the agent or representative of the person in question — Contractual nature of actions
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that claims brought against a number of defendants have different legal bases does not preclude application of that provision.

               2.

               Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 applies where claims brought against different defendants are connected when the proceedings are instituted, that is to say, where it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings, without there being any further need to establish separately that the claims were not brought with the sole object of ousting the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State where one of the defendants is domiciled.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case C-283/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Serebryannay vek EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 2(1)(c), 26, 62 and 63 — Chargeable event — Reciprocal supplies of services — Transactions for consideration — Basis of assessment for a transaction in the event of consideration in the form of services — Assignment by a natural person to a company of the right to use and to let to third parties immoveable property in exchange for that company’s services to improve and furnish the property)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/30

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Serebryannay vek EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-283/12) (1)

   (VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 2(1)(c), 26, 62 and 63 - Chargeable event - Reciprocal supplies of services - Transactions for consideration - Basis of assessment for a transaction in the event of consideration in the form of services - Assignment by a natural person to a company of the right to use and to let to third parties immoveable property in exchange for that company’s services to improve and furnish the property)
   2013/C 344/52
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad — Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Serebryannay vek EOOD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Articles 2(1)(c), 26, 62 and 63 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Legislation under which, in the case of non-pecuniary remuneration of a supplier, the consideration for his services consists of another supply of services — Whether a transaction is to be classified as an exchange of services or not — If not, whether the improvement and furnishing of immoveable property may be classified as a taxable transaction — Occurrence of the chargeable event and rule for determining the basis of assessment

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of services to fit out and furnish an apartment must be regarded as having been carried out for consideration if, under a contract concluded with the owner of that apartment, the supplier of those services, first, undertakes to carry out that supply of services at its own expense and, secondly, obtains the right to have that apartment at its disposal in order to use it for its business activities during the term of that contract, without being required to pay rent, whereas the owner recovers the improved apartment at the end of that contract.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Case T-209/17: Order of the General Court of 23 August 2017 — ZGS v EUIPO (Schülerhilfe1)

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/22

         Order of the General Court of 23 August 2017 — ZGS v EUIPO (Schülerhilfe1)
   (Case T-209/17) (1)

   (2017/C 338/25)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling, made pursuant to the orders of the Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen of 25 November 1994 in the cases of Fritz Stöber v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit and José Manuel Piosa Pereira v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Cases C-4/95 and C-5/95)

text:
4. 3. 95               m                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 54/7
If the answer is in the affirmative : Is this also the case where               non-Member State if he would ( in theory) be entitled,
national law alone is to be applied in the recovery                             were he a national of the State in which he resides, and
proceedings on the ground that the parties to the                               according to its laws, to claim unemployment benefit
enforcement proceedings are resident within the State and                       from the competent authority of the State in which he
the enforceable decision was also obtained within the                           resides by virtue of a convention between that State and
State ?                                                                         the non-Member State ?
                                                                         ( b ) Do the provisions of an international social security
                                                                                convention which is concluded with a non-Member
                                                                                State and which ranks as domestic law by virtue of
Reference for a preliminary ruling, made pursuant to the                        having been ratified constitute legislation within the
orders of the Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen of                        meaning of Article 3 ( 1 ) of Regulation (EEC )
25 November 1994 in the cases of Fritz Stober v.                                No 1408/71 ?
Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit and Jose Manuel Piosa Pereira v.
                     Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit                            (c) Is it possible to infer from Community law a rule that
                    (Cases C-4/95 and C-5/95 )                                  Community law is not applicable to employment in a
                                                                                non-Member State ?
                            ( 95/C 54/12 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   ( d) Does Chapter 6 of Title III of Regulation (EEC)
European Communities by order of the Landessozialgericht                        No 1408/71 lay down definitive rules for the
Nordrhein-Westfalen (North Rhine-Westphalia Higher                              calculation of periods of employment, thus excluding
Social Court) — 13th Chamber — of 25 November 1994,                             the application of the principle of equality of treatments
which were received at the Court Registry on 12 January                         in that regard ?
1995, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Fritz Stober v.
Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit (Federal Employment Office )                    (*) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1971 II, p. 416 .
( Case C-4/95 ) and Jose Manuel Piosa Pereira v.
Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit on the following question:
for the purposes of the payment of family allowances in the
Federal Republic of Germany, is a person who carries on an
activity as a self-employed person in the Federal Republic of            Appeal brought on 13 January 1995 by John Deere Ltd
Germany and as such satisfies the definition of a                        against the judgment delivered on 27 October 1994 by the
'self-employed person' within the meaning of Article                     Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
1 ( a ) ( iv ) but not the definition contained in the first             European Communities in case T-35/92 between John
sub-alternative of the second alternative in Article 1 (a ) ( ii) in     Deere Ltd and the Commission of the European
conjunction with Paragraph I.C.(b ) of Annex I a                                                    Communities
'self-employed person' within the meaning of Article 73 of                                        (Case C-7/95 P)
Regulation (EEC ) No 1408/71 ( x )?
                                                                                ( 95/C 54/14 )
( x ) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1971 II, p. 416.
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 October
                                                                          1994 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities in case T-35/92 between John
                                                                         Deere Ltd and the Commission of the European
Reference for a preliminary ruling, made pursuant to the                 Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of
order of the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Landessozialgericht                the European Communities on 13 January 1995 by John
of 28 November 1994 in the case of Aororita Hansen v.                    Deere Ltd, of 15/19 York Place, Edinburgh (United
                      Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit                           Kingdom), represented by Hans-Jorg Niemeyer and Rainer
                           (Case C-6/95 )                                Bechtold, Rechtsanwalte, of Gleiss Lutz Hootz Hirsch and
                             ( 95/C 54/13 )                              Partners, Brussels, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 ,
                                                                         Rue Goethe.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European           Communities         by      order      of     the
Schleswig-Holsteinisches Landessozialgericht ( Schleswig                The Appellant claims that the Court should:
Holstein Higher Social Court) — 7th Division — of
28 November 1994, which was received at the Court                        1 . quash the decision of the Court of First Instance of
Registry on 13 January 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the                  27 October 1994 in case T-35/92, notified to the
case of Aororita HanEen v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit                            Appellant on 3 November 1994;
( Federal Employment Office) on the following questions:
                                                                         2 . annul      the   Commission      decision   92/157/EEC      of
(a ) Under Article 3 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC )                               17 February 1992 relating to a proceeding under
       No 1408/71 0 ), is a national of a Member State                         Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/B-2/3 1.370 and 31.446
       residing in another Member State entitled to                            — UK Agricultural Tractor Registration Exchange (*))
       unemployment benefit on the basis of employment in a                    and


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance (First Chamber), Tours, by judgment of that court of 4 January 1996 in the case of Locamion SA v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux d'Indre et Loire (Case C-8/96)

text:
2 . 3 . 96                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 64/9
      and which has not been published or otherwise made                — must Articles 4 and 7 of Council Directive 69/355/EEC
      available to the parties ?                                            of 17 July 1969 (*) be interpreted as meaning that the
                                                                            Directive applies to the merger/take-over transactions
4 . Having regard to all other circumstances was the fixing                 defined by Articles 371 to 372-2 of Law No 66.537 of
      of the said quotas by the Council compatible with:                    24 July 1966 on commercial companies ?
        ( i ) the common fisheries policy, and in particular
              Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3760/92 of
                                                                        — Is the charging by the French State of a proportional tax
                                                                            for the drawing-up of registration certificates following
              20 December 1992 establishing a Community
                                                                            a merger/take-over transaction compatible with the
              system for fisheries and aquaculture (2)?                     prohibition laid down by Article 10 of the Directive and,
      ( ii ) The principle of proportionality ?                             if it is not, is it covered by the provisions of
                                                                            Article 12 ?
5 . If the fixing of the said quotas by Regulation ( EC )
      No 3362/94 is invalid are the applicants entitled to claim        (') OJ, English Special Edition 1969 ( II ), p. 412 .
      damages against the respondent and if so what are the
      conditions for liability ?
(') OJ No L 363 , 31 . 12 . 1994, p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 389 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Conseil
                                                                        d'Etat of the Kingdom of Belgium, Administrative Division,
                                                                        in the proceedings pending before that court in the case of
                                                                        Ligue Royale Beige pour la Protection des Oiseaux and
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                       Societe d'Etudes Ornithologiques AVES against the
Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli by                 Walloon Region, intervener: Federation Royale
orders of that court of 22 November 1995 in criminal                                         Ornithologique Beige
proceedings against Sandro Gallotti and Francesco
                                 Palermo                                                          ( Case C-10/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 64/20 )
                       ( Case C-6/96 and 7/96 )
                             ( 96/C 64/18 )
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d'Etat
European Communities by orders of the Pretura                           ( Council of State ) of the Kingdom of Belgium,
Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli                    Administrative Division, of 10 November 1995 , which was
( Rome District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of                received at the Court Registry on 17 January 1996 , for a
22 November 1995 , which were received at the Court                     preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Registry on 11 January 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in               court in the case of Ligue Royale Beige pour la Protection
criminal proceedings against Sandro Gallotti and Francesco              des Oiseaux and Societe d'Etudes Ornithologiques AVES
Palermo . The questions referred by the Pretura                         against the Walloon Region, intervener: Federation Royale
Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli to the             Ornithologique Beige, on the following questions :
Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling are identical with
those in Case C-58/95 ( 1 ).                                            1 . Do Articles 5 , 9 and 18 of Directive 79/409/EEC ( 1 ) of
                                                                            2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds allow a
(!) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p. 6 .                                    Member State to take account, on a decreasing basis and
                                                                            over a specified period, of the fact that the prohibition of
                                                                            capturing birds for recreational purposes would compel
                                                                            numerous fanciers to alter their installations and to
                                                                            abandon certain habitats where that State recognizes
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de                     that breeding is possible but is not yet feasible on a large
                                                                            scale for that reason ?
Grande Instance (First Chamber), Tours, by judgment of
that court of 4 January 1996 in the case of Locamion SA v.
            Directeur des Services Fiscaux d'Indre et Loire             2 . Do Articles 5 , 9 and 18 of Directive 79/409/EEC allow
                              Case C-8/96 )                                 Member States, and if so to what extent, to authorize the
                                                                            capture of birds living naturally in the wild state within
                              ( 96/C 64/19 )                                European territory with a view to obviating, in bird
                                                                             breeding for recreational purposes, the problems of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      consanguinity which would result from too many
European Communities by order of the First Chamber of the                   endogenous crossings ?
Tribunal de Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Tours, of
4 January 1996, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                        (') OJ No L 103 , p . 1 .
 15 January 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Locamion SA v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux d'Indre et
Loire on the following questions :


title: Action brought on 6 April 1998 by Sardegna Lines - Servizi Marittimi della Sardegna SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-58/98)

text:
C 184/14             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.6.98
suffered by him, since he considers that he has adequately          According to the contested decision, the above system
demonstrated the service-related fault and the causal link          contains provisions which involve discrimination on the
between that fault and the damage suffered by him.                  grounds of nationality, conflict with the principle of
                                                                    freedom of establishment and constitute aid to encourage
                                                                    investment in ships in a way which is liable to infringe
(1) OJ C 387, 20.12.97, p. 25.
                                                                    Community rules and grants aid for the leasing of ships,
                                                                    which constitutes operating aid of the type not allowed by
                                                                    Community guidelines.
                                                                    In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:
Action brought on 6 April 1998 by Sardegna Lines Ð
Servizi Marittimi della Sardegna SpA against the                    Ð infringement of Council Directive 90/684/EEC of
         Commission of the European Communities                         21 December 1990 on aid to shipbuilding (1), which
                                                                        forms part of a system of incentives in the industry
                        (Case T-58/98)
                                                                        which has not been taken into consideration at all in
                         (98/C 184/25)                                  the procedure in question;
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     Ð error of assessment and misuse of power in that the
                                                                        legal and factual elements used to support the
                                                                        contested decision are absent. In this respect, the
An action against the Commission of the European                        Commission made an error of assessment with regard
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       to the alleged substantial amendments which Law 11/
Instance of the European Communities on 6 April 1998                    1988 made to Law 20/1951, which led the
by Sardegna Lines Ð Servizi Marittimi della Sardegna                    Commission to characterize the system of regional
SpA, represented by Francesco Caruso, Ugo Iaccarino,                    incentives at issue as new aid' and to consider it
Beniamino Carnevale and Claudia Caruso, of the Naples                   subject to the obligation to give prior notice pursuant
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   to Article 93(3) of the Treaty;
Chambers of Francesco Caruso, 2A Rue Van Moer,
Brussels.
                                                                    Ð infringement and erroneous application of Article 92(1)
                                                                        of the Treaty inasmuch as trade between the Member
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             States is not affected and competition is not distorted;
                                                                    Ð that the conditions for the application of
Ð annul Commission Decision 98/95/EC of 21 October                      Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty are met in that
    1997 concerning aid granted by the Region of Sardinia               Sardinia is an underdeveloped Italian region, and the
    (Italy) to shipping companies in Sardinia (OJ L 20 of               defendant should have taken account of the isolation
    27.1.1998, p. 30);                                                  and remoteness of the region;
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                            Ð breach of essential procedural requirements inasmuch
                                                                        as the statement of reasons for the decision is
                                                                        inadequate.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    (1) OJ L 380, 31.12.1990, p. 27.
The applicant contests the Commission's decision of
21 October 1997 inasmuch as it considers a system of aid
granted by the region of Sardinia to shipping line to be
unlawful.
                                                                    Action brought on 8 April 1998 by Volkswagen AG
The allegedly unlawful aid was introduced by Sardinian
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
Regional Law No 20 of 15 May 1951 which established a
fund at the Credito Industriale del Banco di Sardegna for                                   (Case T-62/98)
the grant of loans to shipping companies intending to
                                                                                (98/C 184/26)
build, purchase, convert or repair vessels. The grant of
such loans was subject to the condition that the
beneficiary undertaking had its head office, country of                            (Language of the case: German)
domicile for tax purposes and port of register in the
region of Sardinia. A number of amendments, which the
applicant claims were substantial, were made to that                An action against the Commission of the European
system of aid subsequently by Regional Law No 11/98.                Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case T-160/10: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — J v Parliament (Right of petition — Petition addressed to the European Parliament — Decision to take no further action — Action for annulment — Duty to state reasons — Petition not falling within an area of activity of the European Union)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — J v Parliament
   (Case T-160/10) (1)

   (Right of petition - Petition addressed to the European Parliament - Decision to take no further action - Action for annulment - Duty to state reasons - Petition not falling within an area of activity of the European Union)
   2012/C 355/50
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: J (Marchtrenk, Austria) (represented by: A. Auer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and N. Görlitz, agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions of 2 March 2010 to take no further action in relation to the petition lodged by the applicant on 19 November 2009 (petition No 1673/2009).

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed;

               2.

               Mr J is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case T-146/04: Action brought on 20 April 2004 by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso against the European Parliament

text:
               26.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/9

         Action brought on 20 April 2004 by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso against the European Parliament
   (Case T-146/04)
   (2004/C 168/16)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 April 2004 by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso, residing in Saint Pierre d'Irube (France), represented by Didier Rouget, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul European Parliament decision of 24 February 2004 to make deductions on the allowances owing to the applicant until his alleged debt to the Parliament is paid off;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision, the European Parliament found that, in the absence of vouchers attesting to the use of the various parliamentary allowances, the applicant, a Member of Parliament, owed the sum of EUR 118 360.18 and proceeded to make deductions on those allowances.
   The applicant contests that decision, arguing that the Parliament infringed the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members, inter alia on the grounds that it was taken by the Secretary-General of the Parliament and not by the Bureau of the Parliament, as provided for by Article 27 of those rules. The applicant also alleges that the contested decision infringes the principles of objectivity, impartiality, equality and non-discrimination and also the principle that both parties must be heard and the rights of the defence. He also alleges that the contested decision did not contain sufficient reasons and that it is a misuse of powers, since it was adopted to attain purely political objectives. Lastly, the applicant states that there has been a manifest error of appreciation by the Parliament.


title: Case C-449/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 26 July 2017 — A & G Fahrschul-Akademie GmbH v Finanzamt Wolfenbüttel

text:
               2.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 26 July 2017 — A & G Fahrschul-Akademie GmbH v Finanzamt Wolfenbüttel
   (Case C-449/17)
   (2017/C 330/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A & G Fahrschul-Akademie GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Wolfenbüttel

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the concept of school or university education in Article 132(1)(i) and (j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax cover driving school tuition to acquire category B and category C1 driving licences?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:
               Can the applicant be recognised as an organisation with similar objects for the purposes of Article 132(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax on the basis of the provisions on the driving instructor examination and the issue of a driving instruction and driving school licence in the Law on driving instructors (Gesetz über das Fahrlehrerwesen) of 25 August 1969 (Bundesgesetzblatt I 1969, 1336), last amended by the Law of 28 November 2016 (Bundesgesetzblatt I 2016, 2722, Fahrlehrergesetz, Law on driving instructors), and of the public interest in the training of learner drivers to be safe, responsible and environmentally aware road users?

               3.

               If the answer to question 2 is in the negative:
               Does the term ‘tuition given privately by teachers’ contained in Article 132(1)(j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax require that the taxable person be an individual trader?

               4.

               If the answers to questions 2 and 3 are in the negative:
               Is an instructor always providing tuition privately within the meaning of Article 132(1)(j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax if he acts on his own account and at his own risk, or must further requirements be met to qualify as a private teacher?


title: Case T-117/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Isdin v EUIPO — Spirig Pharma (ERYFOTONA ACTINICA)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/62

         Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Isdin v EUIPO — Spirig Pharma (ERYFOTONA ACTINICA)
   (Case T-117/16) (1)

   (2017/C 144/92)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2001 in Case T-194/99: Cristiano Sebastiani v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Promotion — Staff report — Absence — Consideration of comparative merits)

text:
C 44/12                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.2.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 November 2001
                     of 15 November 2001
                                                                          in Case T-194/99: Cristiano Sebastiani v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
in Case T-128/99: Signal Communications Ltd v Office for                  (Officials — Promotion — Staff report — Absence —
Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                                   Consideration of comparative merits)
                       Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/21)
(Community trade mark — Word mark TELEYE — Appli-                                             (Language of the case: French)
cation accompanied by a claim of priority on the basis of
the earlier mark TELEEYE — Request for correction —
              Substantial alteration of the mark)
                                                                          In Case T-194/99: Cristiano Sebastiani, residing in Brussels,
                                                                          represented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmentier and V. Peere,
                                                                          lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                          (2002/C 44/20)                                  Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berar-
                                                                          dis-Kayser and D. Waelbroeck) — application for annulment
                                                                          of the decision of the Commission not to promote the
                                                                          applicant to Grade A 6 in the 1998 promotions procedure —
                  (Language of the case: English)                         the Court of First Instance (Single Judge); J. Palacio González,
                                                                          Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 Nov-
                                                                          ember 2001, in which it:
                                                                          1.    annuls the decision of the Commission not to promote the
                                                                                applicant to Grade A 6 in the 1998 promotions procedure;
In Case T-128/99: Signal Communications Ltd, established in               2.    orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Hong Kong (China), represented by J. Grayston and A. Bywater,
Lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks              (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: F. López de Rego and
G. Humphreys) — action brought against the decision of
24 March 1999 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (Case R 219/1998-1), notified to the applicant on
25 March 1999 — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi, President, R.M. Moura                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Ramos and V. Tiili, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for
the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 November 2001, in
which it:                                                                                of 15 November 2001
                                                                          in Case T-142/00: Michel Van Huffel v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
1.    Annuls the decision of 24 March 1999 of the First Board of
      Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                          (Officials — Access to internal competitions — Contracts
      (Trade Marks and Designs) (Case R 219/1998-1);
                                                                          with undertakings — Competition notice — Condition for
                                                                          admission requiring membership of the staff covered by the
                                                                                Staff Regulations)
2.    Orders the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those of the
      applicant.
                                                                                (2002/C 44/22)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                          In Case T-142/00: Michel Van Huffel, member of the tempor-
                                                                          ary staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          residing in Chaumont-Gistoux (Belgium), represented by


title: Case T-209/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2008 — Gaedertz v OHIM — Living Byte Software (GlobalRemote) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/26

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2008 — Gaedertz v OHIM — Living Byte Software (GlobalRemote)
   (Case T-209/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)
   (2009/C 55/47)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Johann-Christoph Gaedertz (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: E.M. Gerstenberg, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Living Byte Software GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Freifrau von Welser, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 April 2007 (Case R 272/2005-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Johann-Christoph Gaedertz and Living Byte Software GmbH
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener are ordered to bear their own costs.

               3.

               The applicant is ordered to pay the defendant's costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Case T-372/11: Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2014  — Basic v OHIM — Repsol YPF (basic) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark basic — Earlier Community figurative mark BASIC — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the services — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2014 — Basic v OHIM — Repsol YPF (basic)
   (Case T-372/11) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark basic - Earlier Community figurative mark BASIC - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the services - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 261/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel (Munich, Germany) (represented by: D. Altenburg and H. Bickel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 March 2011 (Case R 1440/2010-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Repsol YPF SA and Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case F-21/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 December 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Action for damages — Allegedly unlawful processing of medical information — Inadmissibility — Failure to bring a claim for damages within a reasonable time)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/62

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 December 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-21/07) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Action for damages - Allegedly unlawful processing of medical information - Inadmissibility - Failure to bring a claim for damages within a reasonable time)
   (2008/C 51/115)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of a series of unlawful acts on the part of a number of Commission officials, in particular, when processing medical information concerning the applicant.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

               2.

               The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 22.9.2007, p. 20.


title: Case T-442/13: Order of the General Court of 9 December 2014  — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/31

         Order of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-442/13) (1)

   (2015/C 056/43)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Case F-64/12: Action brought on 21 June 2012 — ZZ v EEAS

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/28

         Action brought on 21 June 2012 — ZZ v EEAS
   (Case F-64/12)
   2012/C 258/50
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Casado Garcia-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European External Action Service

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted to Grade AD 6 under the 2011 promotion procedure and for an order that the defendant pay compensation for the damage suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 15 November 2011 not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 6 under the 2011 promotion procedure;

               —

               Annul, in so far as necessary, the decision of 23 March 2011 rejecting the complaint;

               —

               Order the EEAS to pay the applicant an amount fixed ex aequo et bono at EUR 6 000 by way of compensation for the non-material and professional damage he has suffered, with interest for delayed payment at the legal rate from the date at which that amount becomes due;

               —

               Order the EEAS to pay the costs.


title: Case T-453/17: Action brought on 20 July 2017 — TV v Council

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/29

         Action brought on 20 July 2017 — TV v Council
   (Case T-453/17)
   (2017/C 347/38)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: TV (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present action admissible and well-founded;

         Consequently,

               —

               Annul the decision of 19 August 2016 dismissing the applicant at the end of his probation period, namely 1 September 2016;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 11 April 2017 rejecting the applicant’s claim of 4 November 2016;

               —

               Award the applicant the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-pecuniary harm suffered;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful, in that it confirms the conclusion of the opinion of the Reports Committee (CORAP), which substituted its own evaluation for that of the reporting officers.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of fact and law vitiating the grounds on which the probation report is based.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a lack of normal probation conditions.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care and the principle of sound administration.

         The applicant is of the opinion, moreover, that the illegalities set out in the pleas for annulment are all failings imputable to the defendant. The applicant is therefore also seeking compensation for the non-pecuniary harm allegedly caused by the contested decisions.


title: Case C-208/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Stock ‘94 Szolgáltató Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Integrated cooperation — Grant of financing and supplies of current assets necessary for agricultural production — Single, complex supply — Distinct and independent supplies — Ancillary supply and principal supply)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Stock ‘94 Szolgáltató Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-208/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Integrated cooperation - Grant of financing and supplies of current assets necessary for agricultural production - Single, complex supply - Distinct and independent supplies - Ancillary supply and principal supply))
   (2017/C 038/03)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stock ‘94 Szolgáltató Zrt.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that:

               —

               an integrated agricultural cooperation providing that an economic operator delivers goods to a farmer and grants him a loan intended for purchasing those goods constitutes a single transaction for the purposes of that directive, in which the supply of the goods is the principal supply. The taxable amount of that single transaction is made up of both the price of those goods and the interest paid on the loans granted to the farmers;

               —

               the fact that an integrator may provide the farmers with additional services or buy their agricultural production has no bearing on the categorisation of the transaction at issue as a single transaction, for the purposes of Directive 2006/112.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.


title: Case T-541/11: Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2014  — Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian v OHIM — Gulbenkian (GULBENKIAN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark GULBENKIAN — Earlier well-known national mark, company name and national logos Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian — Relative grounds for refusal — Evidence of the existence of the earlier rights — Article 8(1)(b), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 90(a) of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2014 — Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian v OHIM — Gulbenkian (GULBENKIAN)
   (Case T-541/11) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark GULBENKIAN - Earlier well-known national mark, company name and national logos Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian - Relative grounds for refusal - Evidence of the existence of the earlier rights - Article 8(1)(b), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 90(a) of the Rules of Procedure))
   2014/C 261/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal, P. López Ronda and G. Macias Bonilla, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Micael Gulbenkian (Oeiras, Portugal) (represented by: J. Pimenta and A. Sebastião, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 July 2011 (Case R 1436/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian and Mr Micael Gulbenkian.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian to pay the costs;

               3)

               Orders Mr Micael Gulbenkian to refund to the Court of Justice of the European Union the sum of EUR 1  807,48 in accordance with Article 90(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      (1)  OJ C 362, 10.12.2011.


title: Case C-356/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services — Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — National legislation imposing an obligation on medical doctors established in the territory of the Land of Upper Austria to open a bank account with a particular bank)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-356/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - National legislation imposing an obligation on medical doctors established in the territory of the Land of Upper Austria to open a bank account with a particular bank)
   2009/C 205/16
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa, acting as Agent and A. Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt)

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

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 56 EC — National legislation imposing an obligation on medical doctors established in the territory of the Land of Upper Austria to open a bank account with the Oberösterreichische Landesbank

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by imposing an obligation on every medical doctor becoming established in Oberösterreich (Land of Upper Austria) to open a bank account with the Oberösterreichische Landesbank in Linz to which fees for benefits in kind in the context of the exercise of his professional activity are to be transferred by the health insurance funds, the Republic of Austria has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 49 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.09.2008.


title: Case T-147/13: Action brought on 13 March 2013 — Zhejiang Yuhui Solar Energy Source v Commission

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/25

         Action brought on 13 March 2013 — Zhejiang Yuhui Solar Energy Source v Commission
   (Case T-147/13)
   2013/C 123/44
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Zhejiang Yuhui Solar Energy Source Co. Ltd (Jiashan, China) (represented by: V. Akritidis and Y. Melin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the decision of the European Commission communicated by letter of 3 January 2013, No H4/JN/Ref.t13.000011, informing the applicant that it would not examine the applicant’s request to be granted the status of undertaking operating under market economy conditions, filed pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, in the antidumping proceeding concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, opened on 6 September 2012 (AD 590);

               —

               Declare inapplicable to the applicant as regards the present application, by virtue of Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2012 L 344, p. 1);

               —

               And, consequently, order the Commission and any interveners to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law identical to that raised in Case T-143/13 Zhejiang Heda Solar Technology v Commission.


title: Case C-261/11: Action brought on 26 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/5

         Action brought on 26 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
   (Case C-261/11)
   2011/C 238/09
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and N. Fenger, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by introducing and maintaining legislation on immediate taxation on exit of companies’ transfers of assets to another Member State without taxing corresponding transfers of assets within Denmark, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU and Article 31 of the EEA Agreement;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Under Danish tax legislation, the transfer of an undertaking’s assets for use outside Denmark is regarded as a sale and is taxed accordingly, whereas an undertaking within the country is regarded as having ceased only when the assets in question are in actual fact sold. An undertaking which transfers assets between different establishments within Denmark is thus not taxed on the value of those assets in connection with such a transfer. If, however, the same undertaking transfers assets to a fixed establishment outside Denmark, it will immediately pay tax on the value of the assets in the same way as if the assets had been sold.
   In the Commission’s view, that difference in treatment constitutes an obstacle to the freedom of establishment, contrary to Article 49 TFEU. The Commission does not call into question Denmark’s ability to impose tax on increases in value received by an undertaking while it is established in Denmark. However, the Commission finds that the circumstances on the basis of which the tax liability arises should be the same, that is, the realisation of an asset or a factor as a result of which depreciation can be adjusted, regardless of whether the capital values concerned are transferred abroad or remain in Denmark.
   In the Commission’s view, there is no reason for tax to be collected immediately with respect to unrealised increases in value in connection with the transfer of assets in Denmark to another Member State if such a tax is not imposed in equivalent national situations. The Kingdom of Denmark could thus, for example, determine the value of the unrealised increases in value which it considers it has the right to tax, without that implying the immediate collection of tax or compliance with further conditions for deferring payment of tax.


title: Case C-115/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 6 March 2015 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v NA

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 6 March 2015 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v NA
   (Case C-115/15)
   (2015/C 171/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Defendant: NA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must a third country national ex-spouse of a Union citizen be able to show that their former spouse was exercising Treaty rights in the host Member state at the time of their divorce in order to retain a right of residence under Article 13(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1)?

               2.

               Does an EU citizen have an EU law right to reside in a host member state under Articles 20 and 21 of the TFEU in circumstances where the only state within the EU in which the citizen is entitled to reside is his state of nationality, but there is a finding of fact by a competent tribunal that the removal of the citizen from the host member state to his state of nationality would breach his rights under Article 8 of the ECHR or Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU?

               3.

               If the EU citizen in (2) (above) is a child, does the parent having sole care of that child have a derived right of residence in the host member state if the child would have to accompany the parent on removal of the parent from the host member state?

               4.

               Does a child have a right to reside in the host Member State pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68/EEC (2) (now Article 10 of Regulation 492/2011/EU (3)) if the child’s Union citizen parent, who has been employed in the host Member State, has ceased to reside in the host Member State before the child enters education in that state?

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

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

      (3)  Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union OJ L 141, p. 1.


title: Case C-163/07 P: Order of the Court of 27 November 2007 — Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa Akar v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Public works contracts — Admissibility — Essential procedural conditions — Mandatory representation of natural or legal persons by a lawyer authorised to practise before a court of a Member State — Appeal clearly unfounded)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/30

         Order of the Court of 27 November 2007 — Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa Akar v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-163/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Public works contracts - Admissibility - Essential procedural conditions - Mandatory representation of natural or legal persons by a lawyer authorised to practise before a court of a Member State - Appeal clearly unfounded)
   (2008/C 51/50)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa Akar (represented by: C. Șahin, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. van Nuffel and F. Hoffmeister, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2007 in Case T-129/06 Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Akar v Commission in which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible an application for, first, the annulment of the decision of the Commission of 23 December 2005 relating to the award of the public works contract for the construction of educational establishments in the provinces of Siirt and Diyarbakir and, secondly, suspension of the implementation of the procedure in question — No information, in the contested decision, as to the need to be represented by a lawyer qualified to practise before a court of a Member State in the event of proceedings being brought against the contested decision — Regularised application lodged out of time.
   Operative part

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa Akar are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case C-376/10 P: Appeal brought on 27 July 2010 by Pye Phyo Tay Za against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2010 in Case T-181/08: Pye Phyo Tay Za v Council of the European Union, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/11

         Appeal brought on 27 July 2010 by Pye Phyo Tay Za against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2010 in Case T-181/08: Pye Phyo Tay Za v Council of the European Union, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission
   (Case C-376/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 260/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Pye Phyo Tay Za (represented by: D. Anderson QC, M. Lester, Barrister, G. Martin, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside, in whole, the decision of the General Court;

               —

               Make a declaration that Regulation 194/2008 (1) of 25 February 2008 is void and a nullity in so far as it concerns the appellant; and

               —

               An order that the Council pay the Appellant's costs of this appeal and the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Appellant contends that the following principal flaw runs throughout the General Court’s judgment. The General Court accepted the Council’s submission that the freezing of the Appellant’s funds was justified on the basis that he is a ‘family member’ of a ‘leading businessman’, namely his father Tay Za. The General Court held that the Appellant is therefore not listed as an individual, but as part of a ‘category’ of persons, with the consequence that he loses all procedural protection to which he would be entitled were he listed as an individual, including the requirement for there to be some evidence put forward by the institutions to justify his listing, and basic rights of defence.

               2.

               That approach is, in the Appellant’s view, incorrect as a matter of law and fact. The Appellant is not included in the Regulation because he is part of a category of ‘family members’; he is listed as an individual in his own name, on the express basis that he is himself presumed to benefit from the economic policies of the Government of Burma/Myanmar. The Appellant is therefore plainly entitled to the protection of the fundamental principles of Community law.

               3.

               The Appellant alleges, in addition, the following particular legal flaws in the General Court’s judgment.

               4.

               First, the Court was incorrect to have found that Articles 60 and 301 EC provided an adequate legal base for the Regulation. The Appellant contends that there is an insufficient link between the Appellant and the military regime of Burma/Myanmar. He is not a ruler of Burma/Myanmar nor a person associated with a ruler, and is not controlled, directly or indirectly, by a ruler. The fact that he is the son of someone whom the Council considers to have benefited from the regime is insufficient. The General Court erroneously stated that since (in its view) the institutions would have had the power to impose a more far-reaching trade embargo on Burma/Myanmar, a fortiori it has the power to impose this asset freezing measure on an individual.

               5.

               Second, the General Court erred in holding that the burden of proof is on the Appellant to rebut the presumption that he does not benefit from the regime. The burden should be on the Council to justify imposing a restrictive measure on the Appellant, and to put forward evidence to justify it.

               6.

               Third, the General Court wrongly held that the Council had complied with its obligation to give reasons for the Appellant’s inclusion in the Regulation. The Appellant considers that where the Council names an individual in a Regulation on the express basis that he benefits from the economic policies of a regime, the Council must give actual and specific reasons for that view, relating to the Appellant himself.

               7.

               Fourth, the General Court erred in holding that rights of defence were not applicable to the Appellant. Rights of defence, including the right to a fair hearing and to effective judicial review, are fundamental aspects of the rule of law in the European Union which apply whenever the institutions of the Union impose a measure which directly and adversely affects an individual. Further, the General Court erred in holding that the Appellant’s rights of defence (assuming they do apply) were not violated because a hearing could not have led to a different result since the Appellant had not provided information capable of a different assessment.

               8.

               Fifth, the General Court applied an incorrect standard of review of decisions by which a person is included in an annex to an asset-freezing regulation. Judicial review of the lawfulness of a decision of that kind extends to the assessment of the facts and circumstances relied on as justifying it, and to the evidence and information on which that assessment is made.

               9.

               Finally, the General Court erred in dismissing the Appellant’s arguments that his right to property had been infringed and that the Regulation was unjustified and disproportionate as applied to him.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 of 25 February 2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar and repealing Regulation (EC) No 817/2006
   OJ L 66, p. 1


title: Case T-356/05: Action brought on  19 September 2005  — Zelenkovà/Parliament

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/32

         Action brought on 19 September 2005 — Zelenkovà/Parliament
   (Case T-356/05)
   (2005/C 296/68)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Martina Zelenkovà (Brussels, Belgium) [represented by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi, C. Ronzi, lawyers]

      Defendant(s): European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               Give the applicant the benefit of her conclusions i.e. the cancellation of the grading given in the 16 November 2004 recruitment decision of the Appointing Authority (the Parliament) which was to take effect on 1 December 2004 to grade the applicant at category A*, grade 5, step 2, implying the reinstatement of all the applicant's rights as deriving from a legal and regular employment, i.e. a legal and regular grading as of 1 December 2004, which means a former LA8 grading or its equivalent according to Articles 1-11 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulation (A*7, with the relevant step according to the rules in force before 1 May 2004);

               —

               the award (i) of damages with ‘intérêts de retard’, as compensation for the prejudice to the applicant's career, and (ii) other damages in form of a legal and regular pay, notably the application of the transitional provision contained in Article 21 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulation in force as of 1 May 2004 or, alternatively, the lowering of contributions to the pension scheme based on the principle of equal pay. These rights will have to be duly evaluated at a later stage and are now evaluated, provisionally and ex aequo et bono, at a minimum of EUR 5 000 per year;

               —

               order that the European Parliament shall pay all costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official appointed after the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations on 1 May 2004, but from a reserve list drawn up on the basis of a competition organised before that date, contests her appointment grade, fixed by the Parliament in accordance with the new regulations at A*5. She invokes the same pleas and arguments invoked by the applicants in Case T-58/05 (1).

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16/04/05, p. 38


title: Case T -331/09: Action brought on 25 August 2009 — Novartis v OHIM — Sanochemia Pharmazeutika AG

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/70

         Action brought on 25 August 2009 — Novartis v OHIM — Sanochemia Pharmazeutika AG
   (Case T -331/09)
   2009/C 267/128
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

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

      Other part to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sanochemia Pharmazeutika AG

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 June 2009 in Case R 1601/2007-1; and

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sanochemia Pharmazeutika AG

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark, ‘TOLPOSAN’ for goods in Class 5 (Registration No 4 134 383)

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the international registration of the word mark ‘TONOPAN’ for goods in Class 5 (No 227 508)

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), since there is no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-104/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad, Netherlands, by order of that court of 23 February 2001 in the case of Libertel Groep B.V. against Benelux-Merkenbureau

text:
C 200/38                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       14.7.2001
for service in Luxembourg — appeal against the order of the                (3) In the assessment of the distinctive character of a specific
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third                        colour as a trade mark, must account be taken of whether,
Chamber) of 11 July 2000 in Case T-268/99 Fédération                              with regard to that colour, there is a general interest in
Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des Régions de France and                      availability, such as can exist in respect of signs which
Others v Council [1999] ECR II-2893, seeking to have that                         denote a geographical origin?
order set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
Council of the European Union (Agents F. Anton and                         (4) When considering the question whether a sign, for which
J. Monteiro), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of A. La                        registration as a trade mark is sought, possesses the
Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward                     distinctive character referred to at the beginning of Article
(Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges,                          3(1) and in Article 3(1)(b) of the Directive, must the BMB
Advocate General: C. Stix-Hackl, R. Grass, Registrar, made an                     confine itself to an assessment in abstracto of distinctive
order on 10 May 2001, the operative part of which is as                           character or must it take account of all the actual facts of
follows:                                                                          the case, including the use made of the sign and the
                                                                                manner in which the sign is used?
1.   The appeal is dismissed.
2.   It is unnecessary to give a decision on the applications for leave
     to intervene.                                                         (1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1.
3.   Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des Régions de
     France (FNAB), Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs et
     Distributeurs de Produits de l’Agriculture Biologique (SETRAB)
     and Est Distribution Biogam Sàrl are to pay the costs.
4.   CLESA SA, Danone SA and Compagnie Gervais Danone SA
     are to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
                                                                           richtshof by order of 29 March 2001 of that court in
                                                                           the case of Cookies World Vertriebsges. m.b.H. i.L. v
                                                                                Finanzlandesdirektion fur Tirol
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad,
Netherlands, by order of that court of 23 February 2001                                              (Case C-155/01)
in the case of Libertel Groep B.V. against Benelux-
                          Merkenbureau
                                                                                (2001/C 200/70)
                         (Case C-104/01)
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         (2001/C 200/69)                                   European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtsh-
                                                                           of (Higher Administrative Court) of 29 March 2001, received
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     at the Court Registry on 11 April 2001, for a preliminary
European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad (High                       ruling in the case of Cookies World Vertriebsges. m.b.H. i.L. v
Court), Netherlands, of 23 February 2001, received at the                  Finanzlandesdirektion fur Tirol on the following question:
Court Registry on 5 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Libertel Groep B.V. against Benelux-Merkenbureau
on the following questions:                                                Is it compatible with the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC
(1) Is it possible for a single specific colour which is                   of 17 May 1977 (1) on the harmonisation of the laws of the
     represented as such or is designated by an internationally            Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system
     applied body of rules to acquire a distinctive character for          of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, in particular
     certain goods or services within the meaning of the                   Articles 5 and 6 thereof, for a Member State to treat the
     opening words of Article 3(1) and of Article 3(b) of                  following event as a taxable transaction: the incurring of
     Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1)?                 expenditure relating to services supplied abroad that, if they
                                                                           had been supplied within the national territory to the trader,
(2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:             would not entitle the trader to a deduction of input tax?
     (a)    in what circumstances may it be accepted that a
            single specific colour possesses a distinctive charac-
            ter in the sense used above?                                   (1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
     (b) does it make any difference if registration is sought
            for a wide range of goods and/or services, rather
            than for a specific product or service, or category of
            goods or services respectively?


title: Case C-220/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 27 April 2017 — Planta Tabak-Manufaktur Dr. Manfred Obermann GmbH & Co. KG v Land Berlin

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 27 April 2017 — Planta Tabak-Manufaktur Dr. Manfred Obermann GmbH & Co. KG v Land Berlin
   (Case C-220/17)
   (2017/C 239/31)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Planta Tabak-Manufaktur Dr. Manfred Obermann GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Land Berlin

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Is Article 7(1) and (7) of Directive 2014/40/EU (1) in conjunction with Article 7(14) of Directive 2014/40/EU invalid on the ground of breach of the principle of legal certainty because it requires Member States to prohibit the placing on the market of particular tobacco products even though it is not clear precisely which of those tobacco products are to be prohibited from as early as 20 May 2016 and which only from 20 May 2020?

                           (b)

                           Is Article 7(1) and (7) of Directive 2014/40/EU in conjunction with Article 7(14) of Directive 2014/40/EU invalid on the ground of breach of the principle of equal treatment because it differentiates, as regards the prohibitions to be adopted by Member States, on the basis of sales volumes, without any valid reason for doing so?

                           (c)

                           Is Article 7(1) and (7) of Directive 2014/40/EU invalid on the ground of breach of the principle of proportionality and/or infringement of Article 34 TFEU because it requires Member States to prohibit, from as early as 20 May 2016, the placing on the market of tobacco products with a characterising flavour whose Union-wide sales volumes represent less than 3 % in a particular product category?

                           (d)

                           If the answers to Question 1(a) to 1(c) are in the negative, how is the term ‘product category’ in Article 7(14) of Directive 2014/40/EU to be construed? Must assignment to ‘product categories’ be based on the type of characterising flavour, on the type of (flavoured) tobacco product, or on a combination of both criteria?

                           (e)

                           If the answers to Question 1(a) to 1(c) are in the negative, how is it to be ascertained whether the 3 % limit in Article 7(14) of Directive 2014/40/EU has been reached, in the absence of any official and publicly accessible figures and statistics in that regard?

               2.

                           (a)

                           When transposing Articles 8 to 11 of Directive 2014/40/EU into national law, are Member States allowed to adopt supplementary transitional arrangements?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the negative:

                                       (1)

                                       Are Article 9(6) and point (f) of the second sentence of Article 10(1) of Directive 2014/40/EU invalid on the ground of breach of the principle of proportionality and/or infringement of Article 34 TFEU because they delegate the determination of certain labelling and packaging requirements to the Commission without setting it a time limit in that respect and without providing for more extensive transitional arrangements or time limits to ensure that affected undertakings have adequate time to adapt to the requirements of that directive?

                                       (2)

                                       Are the second sentence of Article 9(1) (text of the warning); the second sentence of point (a) of Article 9(4) (font size); point (b) (smoking cessation information) and point (e) (positioning of the warnings) of the second sentence of Article 10(1); and the first sentence of Article 11(1) (labelling) of Directive 2014/40/EU invalid on the ground of breach of the principle of proportionality and/or infringement of Article 34 TFEU because they confer on Member States various rights of selection and design without setting them a time limit in that respect and without providing for more extensive transitional arrangements or time limits to ensure that affected undertakings have adequate time to adapt to the requirements of that directive?

               3.

                           (a)

                           Must Article 13(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 13(3) of Directive 2014/40/EU be interpreted as meaning that Member States are required to prohibit the use of information referring to taste, smell, flavourings or other additives even where that information is not promotional information and the use of the ingredients is still permitted?

                           (b)

                           Is Article 13(1)(c) of Directive 2014/40/EU invalid on the ground that it infringes Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

      (1)  Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1).


title: Case T-495/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Sociedad agraria de transformación No 9982 Montecitrus v EUIPO — Spanish Oranges (MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN — Earlier EU figurative mark monteCitrus — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Identity of the goods — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Sociedad agraria de transformación No 9982 Montecitrus v EUIPO — Spanish Oranges (MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN)
   (Case T-495/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN - Earlier EU figurative mark monteCitrus - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Identity of the goods - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 144/50)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sociedad agraria de transformación No 9982 Montecitrus (Pulpí, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko and K. Sidat Humphreys, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Spanish Oranges, SL (Castellón, Spain) (represented by: F. Perez Arnau, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2015 (Case R 871/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sociedad agraria de transformación No 9982 Montecitrus and Spanish Oranges

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sociedad agraria de transformación No 9982 Montecitrus to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.