title: Case C-3/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Syndicat OP 84 v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR), itself successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes et de l’horticulture (ONIFLHOR) (Agriculture — European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund — ‘Scrutiny period’ — Possibility for a Member State to extend the scrutiny period where it is impossible to carry out that scrutiny in the time allowed — Repayment of financial assistance — Penalties)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/23

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Syndicat OP 84 v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR), itself successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes et de l’horticulture (ONIFLHOR)
   (Case C-3/12) (1)

   (Agriculture - European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund - ‘Scrutiny period’ - Possibility for a Member State to extend the scrutiny period where it is impossible to carry out that scrutiny in the time allowed - Repayment of financial assistance - Penalties)
   2013/C 225/37
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Syndicat OP 84

      Respondent: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR), itself successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes et de l’horticulture (ONIFLHOR)

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and repealing Directive 77/435/EEC (OJ 1989 L 388, p. 18) — ‘Scrutiny period’ — Possibility for a Member State to extend the scrutiny period where it is impossible to carry out that scrutiny owing to the conduct of the recipient of the financial assistance — Repayment of financial assistance — Penalties

      Operative part of the judgment

   The first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and repealing Directive 77/435/EEC, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3094/94 of 12 December 1994, must be interpreted as meaning that the authorities may, if necessary, carry out the scrutiny operations — notified during the scrutiny period falling between 1 July of one year and 30 June of the following year — beyond the end of that period, without causing the procedure to be marred by an irregularity which the operator under scrutiny may rely on against the decision giving due effects to the results of the scrutiny.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.


title: Case T-376/04: Action brought on 17 September 2004 by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/26

         Action brought on 17 September 2004 by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-376/04)
   (2004/C 284/51)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 September 2004 by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, Brussels (Belgium) represented by K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Order the annulment of the defendant's decision to allow Norway to apply more stringent concentration limits for the chemical substance acrylamide than those applicable in the Community, embodied in Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 59/2004 of 26 April 2004 (1) amending Annex II (Technical regulations, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement and the annulment of the Community's position for the adoption of that decision;

               —

               Declare the illegality and the inapplicability vis-à-vis the applicant of the EEA Joint Committee joint statement concerning the EEA Agreement — Annex II, Chapter XV — regarding the review clauses in the field of dangerous substances of 26 March 1999 (2), in so far as it allows Norway to apply concentration limits for the chemical substance acrylamide that are more stringent than those that apply in the Community;

               —

               Order the defendant to compensate the applicant in the provisional amount of one Euro for damages suffered as a result of the adoption of the contested acts, as well as any applicable interests, pending the exact calculation and determination of the exact amount;

               —

               Order defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In support of its application the applicant submits that, in the absence of new Community legislation there was no power under Article 102 EEA Agreement to adopt the contested measures. The applicant further considers that the contested measures restrict the free movement of goods and thus infringe Articles 1, 3 and 97 of the EEA Agreement. It also claims that they infringe Articles 30 and 31 of Directive 67/548 (3). The applicant also invokes infringements of general principles of Community law, namely the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, proportionality and of non-discrimination as well as of essential procedural requirements, namely the need to consult the European Parliament and the duty to state reasons.
   Regarding its action for damages the applicant submits that because of the contested measures it has suffered both material damage, due to the need to label the polyarcylamide sold in Norway with a more restrictive label and danger warnings incurring additional costs, as well as non-material damage since, in the applicant's opinion, the Norwegian measures allowed by the defendant shed a bad light over the classification of polyarcylamide beyond Norwegian boundaries.

      (1)  OJ L 277, p. 30.

      (2)  OJ C185, p. 6.

      (3)  Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances OJ English special edition: Series I Chapter 1967 p. 234.


title: Case T-287/06: Action brought on 11 October 2006 — TORRES v OHIM — Bodegas Peñalba Lόpez (Torre Albéniz)

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/20

         Action brought on 11 October 2006 — TORRES v OHIM — Bodegas Peñalba Lόpez (Torre Albéniz)
   (Case T-287/06)
   (2006/C 310/40)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Miguel Torres S.A. (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, M. A. Baz de San Ceferino and A. Castán Pérez-Gόmez, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bodegas Peñalba Lόpez S.L.
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 July 2006 in Case R 597/2004-2 and order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Bodegas Peñalba Lόpez S.L.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark Torre Albéniz, in respect of goods in Classes 32, 33 and 39 — Application No 1 191 683.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: A number of Community figurative and word marks and national figurative marks for goods in Class 33.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for registration of the mark dismissed in part.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Application upheld and contested decision refusing registration of the mark applied for annulled in respect of goods in Class 33.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) since the word TORRE is the dominant component in the overall impression produced by the mark applied for, there are aural and visual similarities between the conflicting marks, and a likelihood of confusion exists between the marks which makes it impossible for them to coexist on the market.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)


title: Case T-639/14: Order of the General Court of 9 February 2016 — DEI v Commission (State aid — Complaints — Rejection decisions — Commission’s preliminary assessment — Final decision — Repeal of the contested act — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/32

         Order of the General Court of 9 February 2016 — DEI v Commission
   (Case T-639/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Complaints - Rejection decisions - Commission’s preliminary assessment - Final decision - Repeal of the contested act - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 118/36)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou (DEI) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Bourtzalas, D. Waelbroeck, A. Oikonomou, C. Synodinos and E. Salaka, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission letter COMP/E3/ON/AB/ark*2014/61460 of 21 June 2014 in which the Commission rejected the applicant’s complaints concerning State aid.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the present action.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to rule on the application for leave to intervene made by Alouminion tis Ellados AE.

               3.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.


title: Case T-80/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — PT Musim Mas v Council (Dumping — Imports of biodiesel originating in Indonesia — Definitive collection of provisional anti-dumping duties — Definitive anti-dumping duties — Rights of the defence — Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Normal value — Production costs)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — PT Musim Mas v Council
   (Case T-80/14) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of biodiesel originating in Indonesia - Definitive collection of provisional anti-dumping duties - Definitive anti-dumping duties - Rights of the defence - Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Normal value - Production costs))
   (2016/C 402/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) (Medan, Indonesia) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, A. Verdegay Mena, lawyers, and C. Humpe, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents) and European Biodiesel Board (EBB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by O. Prost and M.-S. Dibling, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFUE for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Articles 1 and 2 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia, in so far as they concern PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas);

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by PT Musim Mas;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the European Biodiesel Board (EBB) to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Case T-413/13: Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015 — City Cycle Industries v Council (Dumping — Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia — Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China — Circumvention — Failure to cooperate — Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Equal treatment — Access to the file)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015 — City Cycle Industries v Council
   (Case T-413/13) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia - Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China - Circumvention - Failure to cooperate - Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Equal treatment - Access to the file))
   (2015/C 146/52)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: City Cycle Industries (Colombo, Sri Lanka) (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold and F.-C. Laprévote, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, Agent, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, Agents); and Maxcom Ltd (Plovdiv, Bulgaria) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Application for the partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (OJ 2013 L 153, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not, to the extent that it concerns City Cycle Industries;

               2)

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred by City Cycle Industries and to bear its own costs;

               3)

               Orders the European Commission and Maxcom Ltd to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case C-322/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England & Wales) made on 5 July 2010 — Medeva BV v Comptroller-General of Patents

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England & Wales) made on 5 July 2010 — Medeva BV v Comptroller-General of Patents
   (Case C-322/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/48
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

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

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Medeva BV

      Defendant: Comptroller-General of Patents

      Questions referred

               1.

               Regulation 469/2009 (1) (the Regulation) recognises amongst the other purposes identified in the recitals, the need for the grant of an SPC by each of the Member States of the Community to holders of national or European patents to be under the same conditions, as indicated in recitals 7 and 8. In the absence of Community harmonisation of patent law, what is meant in Article 3(a) of the Regulation by ‘the product is protected by a basic patent in force’ and what are the criteria for deciding this?

               2.

               In a case like the present one involving a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient, are there further or different criteria for determining whether or not ‘the product is protected by a basic patent’ according to Article 3(a) of the Regulation and, if so, what are those further or different criteria?

               3.

               In a case like the present one involving a multi-disease vaccine, are there further or different criteria for determining whether or not ‘the product is protected by a basic patent’ according to Article 3(a) of the Regulation and, if so, what are those further or different criteria?

               4.

               For the purposes of Article 3(a), is a multi-disease vaccine comprising multiple antigens ‘protected by a basic patent’ if one antigen of the vaccine is ‘protected by the basic patent in force’?

               5.

               For the purposes of Article 3(a), is a multi-disease vaccine comprising multiple antigens ‘protected by a basic patent’ if all antigens directed against one disease are ‘protected by the basic patent in force’?

               6.

               Does the SPC Regulation and, in particular, Article 3(b); permit the grant of a Supplementary Protection Certificate for a single active ingredient or combination of active ingredients where:

                           (a)

                           a basic patent in force protects the single active ingredient or combination of active ingredients within the meaning of Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation; and

                           (b)

                           a medicinal product containing the single active Ingredient or combination of active Ingredients together with one or more other active ingredients is the subject of a valid authorisation granted in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC (2) or 2001/82/EC (3) which is the first marketing authorization that places the single active Ingredient or combination of active ingredients on the market?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (Codified version) (Text with EEA relevance)
   OJ L 152, p. 1

      (2)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use
   OJ L 311, p. 67

      (3)  Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products
   OJ L 311, p. 1


title: Case T-302/11: Action brought on 10 June 2011 — HeidelbergCement v Commission

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/28

         Action brought on 10 June 2011 — HeidelbergCement v Commission
   (Case T-302/11)
   2011/C 238/49
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: HeidelbergCement AG (Heidelberg, Germany) (represented by: U. Denzel and T. Holzmüller, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Articles 1 and 2 of the Commission's decision of 30 March 2011 in Case COMP/39520 — Cement and related products, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, in so far as they concern the applicant;

               —

               in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1)

               The contested decision infringes Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 since it does not give sufficient detail on the purpose of the investigation and requests company information which is not ‘necessary’, within the meaning of Article 18 of Regulation No 1/2003, to investigate the allegations made.

                           —

                           The applicant was not informed in the contested decision or at any other stage of the investigation procedure of what exactly is being investigated. The decision thus infringes the duty in Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 to communicate the purpose of the investigation. According to settled case-law of the Courts of the European Union, sufficient detail of allegations needs to be given so that the addressees and Courts can assess the necessity of the information requested for the investigation.

                           —

                           The decision largely requests the resubmission of information which has already been provided to the Commission in response to earlier requests for information. The information which is already at the Commission's disposal is not ‘necessary’ information within the meaning of Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003.

                           —

                           There is no apparent link between the requested information and the Commission's ‘suspicion’. The Commission misused its powers under Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 to go on a general ‘fishing expedition’ in relation to the applicant. For such general investigations of the market the Commission has Article 17 of Regulation No 1/2003 at its disposal.

                           —

                           The Commission goes beyond its powers in Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 since, in the contested decision, it requires the applicant to analyse and evaluate the requested information.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of the principle of proportionality
               The breadth of the requested information, the choice of means and the short time limit infringe the principle of proportionality.

                           —

                           The composition and processing of the requested information in the prescribed form was too cumbersome for the applicant and was not proportionate to the general nature of the requested information and the purpose of the investigation.

                           —

                           the 12-week time limit within which to reply and the Commission's refusal to extend that time limit were disproportionate. It was objectively impossible for the applicant to respect that time limit.

               3.

               Third plea in law: infringement of the duty to give reasons in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU
               The contested decision infringes the requirements in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU that legal acts are to state the reasons on which they are based in a proper manner, since it is not apparent from that decision why the Commission requested such extensive information, why it proceeded on the basis of Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 and why it imposed such a time constraint.

                           —

                           The contested decision neither sets out the Commission's concrete allegations, nor why the Commission required such exceptionally detailed and extensive information.

                           —

                           In contrast to earlier investigations, the Commission does not state the reasons why it considered it appropriate and necessary to proceed on the basis of Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 in relation to the applicant.

                           —

                           The Commission does not give sufficient reasons why it set such a short time limit and why it refused to extend that time limit.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: infringement of the general principle of precision
               In the applicant's view, the contested decision and the questionnaire sent with it infringe the requirements of the general principle of precision, since, in many respects, they are unclear, uncertain and contradictory and do not contain any clear guidance for the applicant on how to proceed. The applicant is unable to determine, beyond doubt, what it is required to do in order to avert the risk of being sanctioned. The Commission failed to respond, or at least in a sufficient manner, to the applicant's extensive enquiries and requests for clarification.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: infringement of the applicant's rights of defence
               The contested decision infringes the applicant's rights of defence which are laid down in Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in so far as it requires the applicant's active involvement in the evaluation and analysis of company data, which are tasks falling within the Commission's duty to adduce evidence.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case C-445/11 P: Appeal brought on 31 August 2011 by Bavaria NV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-235/07 Bavaria NV v European Commission

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/8

         Appeal brought on 31 August 2011 by Bavaria NV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-235/07 Bavaria NV v European Commission
   (Case C-445/11 P)
   2011/C 340/14
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Bavaria NV (represented by: O.W. Brouwer, P.W. Schepens and N. Al-Ani, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside paragraphs 202 to 212, 252 to 255, 288, 289, 292 to 295, 306, 307 and 335 of the judgment delivered by the General Court on 16 June 2011;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court or annul the decision at issue (1) (in whole or in part); and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

         First
      , the appellant submits that the General Court erred in its interpretation of European Union law, specifically Article 101(1) TFEU, infringed the principle of legal certainty and was inconsistent in the reasons for its determination of the starting date of the infringement. The meeting on 27 February 1996 does not constitute part of the infringement and cannot possibly be the starting point for a series of meetings having an anti-competitive object. In so far as the General Court considered that the mere fact that the meeting on 27 February 1996 was called a ‘Catherijne-meeting’ showed that the meeting had an anti-competitive object, this contradicts the decision at issue and the General Court is exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction. The method by which the General Court found that there was a series of meetings with an anti-competitive object cannot be used to determine when the infringement began. Furthermore, the General Court’s reasoning was inconsistent when it determined that a single statement from InBev could suffice to demonstrate the existence of an infringement.

         Secondly
      , the appellant submits that the General Court erred in its interpretation and application of the principle of equal treatment (and provided an inadequate statement of reasons) in determining that the decision at issue could not be compared with earlier cases in that area, in particular with the Commission’s decision in Case 2003/569 (2) — Interbrew and Alken-Maes. Furthermore, there was no objective justification for the difference in treatment of the undertakings concerned in those cases.

         Thirdly
      , the General Court infringed the principle of equal treatment, the principle of the non-retroactivity of penalties and the principles of legality and proportionality by failing to reduce the fine imposed on the appellant on account of (the acceptance of) the application of a fines policy that became stricter in 2005 in a situation in which that application was the consequence of what was acknowledged by the General Court to be the excessive duration of the administrative procedure, due entirely to the Commission’s inaction.

         Fourthly
      , the General Court erred in its interpretation and application of the principle of proportionality in that it accepted that the Commission calculated the starting amount of the fine on the basis of the appellant’s turnover including excise duties, as a result of which the actual impact of the appellant on competition was overestimated and the starting amount applied in its regard was set too high.

         Fifthly
      , the General Court erred in its interpretation of the rights of the defence and the right to good administration in finding that the appellant did not have to be granted access to InBev’s reply to the objections. The appellant had provided sufficient indications that that document contained exculpatory evidence.

      (1)  Commission Decision C(2007) 1697 of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/B-2/37.766 — Dutch beer market)

      (2)  Commission Decision 2003/569/EC of 5 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case IV/37.614/F3 PO/Interbrew and Alken-Maes) (OJ 2003 L 200, p. 1).


title: Case T-383/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — Ferienhäuser zum See v OHIM — Sunparks Groep (Sun Park Holidays) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Sun Park Holidays — Earlier Community figurative mark Sunparks Holiday Parks — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — Ferienhäuser zum See v OHIM — Sunparks Groep (Sun Park Holidays)
   (Case T-383/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark Sun Park Holidays - Earlier Community figurative mark Sunparks Holiday Parks - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2014/C 52/65
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ferienhäuser zum See GmbH (Marienmünster, Germany) (represented by: M. Boden and I. Höfener, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sunparks Groep NV (Den Haan, Belgium)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2012 (Case R 1928/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sunparks Groep NV and Ferienhäuser zum See GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.


title: Case T-369/17: Action brought on 13 June 2017 — Winkler v Commission

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/46

         Action brought on 13 June 2017 — Winkler v Commission
   (Case T-369/17)
   (2017/C 249/63)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bernd Winkler (Grange, Ireland) (represented by: A. Kässens, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision of 13 March 2017 on the applicant’s complaint and order the defendant to adopt a decision on the calculation of the capital value at the time of the registration of the applicant’s claim on 14 September 2011;

               —

               in the alternative, order the defendant to pay compensation amounting to EUR 19 920,39, payable to the applicant’s pension account.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of the principle that action must be taken within a reasonable period, infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of fair procedure, and infringement of the obligations relating to information and consultation.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and proportionality.

               3.

               Third plea in law: failure to respect legitimate expectations.


title: Joined Cases T-108/07 and T-354/08: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — Spira v Commission (Competition — Agreements and abuse of a dominant position — Rough diamond market — ‘Supplier of Choice’ (SOC) system of distribution — Decision rejecting a complaint — No Community interest — Procedural rights of a complainant — Access to documents — Obligations in relation to the investigation of a complaint — Market foreclosure effects — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — Spira v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-108/07 and T-354/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements and abuse of a dominant position - Rough diamond market - ‘Supplier of Choice’ (SOC) system of distribution - Decision rejecting a complaint - No Community interest - Procedural rights of a complainant - Access to documents - Obligations in relation to the investigation of a complaint - Market foreclosure effects - Manifest error of assessment)
   2013/C 252/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Diamanthandel A. Spira BVBA (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: Y. van Gerven, F. Louis, A. Vallery and J. Bourgeois, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by F. Castillo de la Torre, R. Sauer and J. Bourke, and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, Agents, and, in Case T-108/07, initially by S. Drakakakis, lawyer, and T. Soames, Solicitor, and subsequently by T. Soames and, in Case T-354/08, by T. Soames)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: De Beers (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); and De Beers UK Ltd, formerly The Diamond Trading Co. Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented: initially by W. Allan and S. Horwitz, Solicitors, and J. Ysewyn, lawyer, and subsequently by W. Allan, J. Ysewyn and N. Gràcia Malfeito, Solicitor, and lastly by N. Gràcia Malfeito, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, J. Marchandise, lawyers, and P. Riedel, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Applications for the annulment of the Commission’s Decisions of 26 January 2007 (Case COMP/38.826/B-2 — Spira/De Beers/DTC Supplier of Choice) and of 5 June 2008 (Case COMP/38.826/E-2 — De Beers/DTC Supplier of Choice) rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the interveners alleging infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC in the rough diamond market through their use of distribution agreements known as ‘Supplier of Choice’ (SOC) arrangements.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Diamanthandel A. Spira BVBA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders De Beers and De Beers UK Ltd to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case F-121/13: Action brought on 16 December 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/53

         Action brought on 16 December 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-121/13)
   2014/C 52/104
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights into the European Union pension scheme applying the new GIPs to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 15 April 2013 calculating the bonus on his pension rights acquired before his entry into the service of the Commission;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-403/09 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru — Republic of Slovenia) — Jasna Detiček v Maurizio Sgueglia (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Provisional measures concerning custody — Decision enforceable in a Member State — Wrongful removal of the child — Other Member State — Other court — Custody of the child granted to the other parent — Jurisdiction — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/16

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru — Republic of Slovenia) — Jasna Detiček v Maurizio Sgueglia
   (Case C-403/09 PPU) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Provisional measures concerning custody - Decision enforceable in a Member State - Wrongful removal of the child - Other Member State - Other court - Custody of the child granted to the other parent - Jurisdiction - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure)
   2010/C 63/24
   Language of the case: Slovene

      Referring court

   Višje sodišče v Mariboru

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jasna Detiček

      Defendant: Maurizio Sgueglia

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Provisional and protective measures — Jurisdiction of a court in Member State A to rule provisionally on an application to have custody of the child restored, the court dealing with the substance (disposing of the divorce proceedings) being in Member State B

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as not allowing, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, a court of a Member State to take a provisional measure in matters of parental responsibility granting custody of a child who is in the territory of that Member State to one parent, where a court of another Member State, which has jurisdiction under that regulation as to the substance of the dispute relating to custody of the child, has already delivered a judgment provisionally giving custody of the child to the other parent, and that judgment has been declared enforceable in the territory of the former Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case C-67/16 P: Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña and Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-465/13 Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña and CTTI v Commission

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/15

         Appeal brought on 5 February 2016 by Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña and Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-465/13 Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña and CTTI v Commission
   (Case C-67/16 P)
   (2016/C 118/18)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellants: Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña and Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI) (represented by: J. L. Buendía Sierra and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and SES Astra

      Forms of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015;

               —

               give a definitive ruling on the action for annulment and annul the Commission decision of 19 June 2013; (1)

               —

               order the European Commission to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The judgment under appeal upheld a Commission decision on State aid relating to several measures adopted by the Spanish public authorities to ensure that the signal for digital terrestrial television (DTT) reaches remote areas of the territory, in which only 2,5 % of the population live. In that decision, the Commission acknowledged that, from a substantive point of view, the market could not offer this service without public intervention. Nonetheless, it denied that it was a service of general economic interest (SGEI) claiming, from a formal point of view, that that service had not been ‘clearly’ defined and entrusted by the public authorities. It also claimed that, in any event, the public authorities did not have the power to choose a specific technology at the time of organising the SGEI.

      First and only ground of appeal: errors in law in the interpretation of Articles 14, 106(2) and 107(1) TFEU, Protocol (No 26) on services of general economic interest and Protocol (No 29) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States

   In particular, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in the judgment under appeal in that:

               —

               it clearly exceeded the boundaries of ‘manifest error’ in its assessment of the public authorities’ various documents defining and entrusting the SGEI;

               —

               it unduly restricted the Member States’ ‘broad discretion’, which applies both to the definition of the SGEI and the ‘organisation’ of the SGEI and which thus includes the choice of the ways of performing the SGEI and the choice of a specific technology, independently of whether those are included in the document defining the SGEI or a separate document;

               —

               its analysis of the applicable Spanish law was flawed;

               —

               it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘entrusting’ of the SGEI to one or several undertakings can be done by means of several documents;

               —

               it failed to recognise that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘entrusting’ do not require the use of a specific formula or wording, but a substantive and functional analysis;

               —

               it ignored the applicability of Protocol (No 29) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the TFEU and TEU.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/10 (ex NN 36/10, ex CP 163/09)) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha) (OJ L 217, p. 52).


title: Case C-626/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Appeal — European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) — Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemical substances — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) — Articles 57 and 59 — Substances subject to authorisation — Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern — Inclusion on the candidate list of substances — Publication of the list on the ECHA website — Action for annulment brought prior to that publication — Admissibility)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/17

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-626/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) - Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemical substances - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - Articles 57 and 59 - Substances subject to authorisation - Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern - Inclusion on the candidate list of substances - Publication of the list on the ECHA website - Action for annulment brought prior to that publication - Admissibility)
   2013/C 344/27
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS (represented by: R. Cana and K. Van Maldegem, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, advocaat), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and B. Koopman, Agents), European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, extended composition) of 21 September 2011 in Case T-1/10 Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and SNF v ECHA dismissing as inadmissible an action for the annulment of the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 7 December 2009, identifying acrylamide (EC No 201-173-7) as a substance fulfilling the criteria referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), pursuant to Article 59 of that regulation — Act subject to review

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 21 September 2011 in Case T-1/10 PPG and SNF v ECHA;

               2.

               Refers the present case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.


title: Case T-48/08: Action brought on 28 January 2008 — Fusco v OHIM — Fusco International (FUSCOLLECTION)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/37

         Action brought on 28 January 2008 — Fusco v OHIM — Fusco International (FUSCOLLECTION)
   (Case T-48/08)
   (2008/C 92/74)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Vincenzo Fusco (represented by: B. Saguatti, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Antonio Fusco International SA, Luxembourg (Lugano branch) (Lugano, Switzerland)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 24 October 2007 and amend it to the effect that the action brought by the applicant before the Board of Appeal should be considered to be well founded and, consequently, the opposition should be upheld;

               —

               order OHIM and the intervening party, Antonio Fusco International SA, to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Antonio Fusco International SA, Luxembourg (Lugano branch)

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark FUSCOLLECTION (application for registration No 1.503.366) in respect of goods in Classes 9, 18 and 25

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark (No 727.375) and Italian trade mark (No 489.262) ENZO FUSCO in respect of goods in Class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Art 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2002 in Case C-152/00: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 86/609/EEC — Incomplete transposition)

text:
9.11.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 274/9
3.    a)    The provision of general care and domestic help by an            1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to
            out-patient care service to persons in a state of physical or          ensure the correct transposition of Articles 4, 7(3), 11, 12(2),
            economic dependence amounts to the supply of services                  18(1) and (3) and 22(1) of Council Directive 86/609/EEC of
            closely linked to welfare and social security work within              24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations
            the meaning of Article 13(A)(1)(g) of the Sixth Directive              and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding
            (77/388/EEC).                                                          the protection of animals used for experimental and other
                                                                                scientific purposes, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
      (b) The exemption provided for in Article 13(A)(1)(g) of the                 obligations under that directive;
            Sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) may be relied upon by a
            taxable person before national courts in order to oppose         2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
            national rules incompatible with that provision. It is for
            the national court to establish, in the light of all relevant    (1 ) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
            factors, whether the taxable person is an organisation
            recognised as charitable within the meaning of the
            aforesaid provision.
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 10 September 2002
                                                                             in Case C-172/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      the Landgericht Köln): Ferring Arzneimittel GmbH v
                                                                                Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH ( 1)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                             (Interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC —
                        of 12 September 2002                                 Medicinal products — Withdrawal of parallel import licence
                                                                             in consequence of waiver of the marketing authorisation for
                                                                             the medicinal product of reference by the holder of that
in Case C-152/00: Commission of the European Communi-                                                    authorisation)
                      ties v French Republic ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 274/14)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
      Directive 86/609/EEC — Incomplete transposition)                                           (Language of the case: German)
                           (2002/C 274/13)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             In Case C-172/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       EC by the Landgericht Köln (Germany) for a preliminary ruling
                    in the European Court Reports)                           in the proceedings pending before that court between Ferring
                                                                             Arzneimittel GmbH and Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH,
                                                                             on the interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC, the
                                                                             Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of
In Case C-152/00, Commission of the European Communities                     the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,
(Agents: L. Ström and J.-F. Pasquier) v French Republic                      V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,
(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Vasak, and G. de Bergues):               Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
Application for a declaration that, by failing to transpose fully            has given a judgment on 10 September 2002, in which it has
and correctly Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November                    ruled:
1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and adminis-
trative provisions of the Member States regarding the protec-                1.    Article 28 EC precludes national legislation under which the
tion of animals used for experimental and other scientific                         withdrawal of the marketing authorisation of reference for a
purposes (OJ 1986 L 358, p. 1), and in particular Articles 4, 7,                   medicinal product on application by the holder thereof means
11, 12, 18 and 22 thereof, the French Republic has failed to                       that the parallel import licence for that product automatically
fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, the Court (Fifth                       ceases to be valid.
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
S. von Bahr and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geel-               2.    The fact that the new version of the medicinal product has been
hoed, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,                        placed on the market of the Member State of importation alone
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 September 2002,                      or is also found on the market in other Member States does not
in which it:                                                                       alter the answer to the first question.


title: Case C-689/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2015 — W.F. Gözze Frottierweberei GmbH, Wolfgang Gözze v Verein Bremer Baumwollbörse

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2015 — W.F. Gözze Frottierweberei GmbH, Wolfgang Gözze v Verein Bremer Baumwollbörse
   (Case C-689/15)
   (2016/C 118/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: W.F. Gözze Frottierweberei GmbH, Wolfgang Gözze

      Respondent: Verein Bremer Baumwollbörse

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can the use of an individual mark as a certification mark constitute, in relation to the goods for which it is used, use as a trade mark for the purposes of Articles 9(1) and 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark? (1)

               2.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: is such a mark to be declared invalid, in accordance with Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, or to be revoked, in accordance with a mutatis mutandis application of Article 73(c) of that regulation, if the proprietor of the mark fails to ensure that expectations in trade relating to the quality associated with the sign are being met by carrying out periodic quality controls at its licensees?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.


title: Case F-106/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2013 — BM v ECB (Civil Service — ECB Staff — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary penalty — Written reprimand)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/44

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2013 — BM v ECB
   (Case F-106/11) (1)

   (Civil Service - ECB Staff - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary penalty - Written reprimand)
   2013/C 252/74
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BM (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented initially by P. Embley, M. López Torres and E. Carlini, Agents, then by M. López Torres and E. Carlini, Agents and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision of the Deputy Director General of the ECB’s Human Resources, Budget and Organisation Directorate General to impose a reprimand on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that BM is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012, p. 68.


title: Case C-285/13 P: Appeal brought on 24 May 2013 by Bimbo, SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 20 March 2013 in Case T-277/12: Bimbo, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/13

         Appeal brought on 24 May 2013 by Bimbo, SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 20 March 2013 in Case T-277/12: Bimbo, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-285/13 P)
   2013/C 252/21
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Bimbo, SA (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Café do Brasil SpA

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               As the main plea, annul in part the judgment of 20 March 2013 refusing registration of Community Trademark 3 478 311‘Caffé KIMBO & design’ in respect of the following goods in class 30: ‘Coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, rice, tapioca, sago, coffee substitutes; flour, confectionery, ices; honey, treacles; yeast, baking-powder; salt, mustard; vinegar sauces (condiments); relish; ice’ and confirm the same judgment in so far as it rejected the community trademark application 3 478 311‘Caffé KIMBO & design’ in respect of ‘preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry.’

               —

               As a subsidiary plea, annul in part the judgment of the General Court, of 20 March 2013, refusing registration of community trade mark application number 3 478 311‘Caffé KIMBO & design’ for the following products of class 30 ‘flour, confectionery, ices, yeast and baking-powder’ and confirm the judgment in so far as it rejected the community trademark application 3 478 311‘Caffé KIMBO & design’ in respect of ‘preparations made from cereals, bread, pasty.’

               —

               Order the defendants to bear the costs of the procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present Appeal is based on the following grounds:

               —

               Rule 19 IR (CE) 2868/95 (1).
               When assessing the likelihood of confusion between Community Trademark application 3.478.311 ‘Caffé KIMBO & Design’ and earlier Spanish registration 291.655 for BIMBO, both registered to cover goods in class 30, the earlier trademark was not taken into account as a registered trademark but as a well-known trademark.
               We submit that the Appellant duly proved the existence of the earlier registration which was and still is in force, despite the fact that no document showing renewal of the application was provided.

               3.2.

                           —

                           Articles 8.1, 8.2, 8.4, 8.5 / CTMR (EC) No 207/2009 (2). Art 6 bis Paris Convention.
                           When assessing the likelihood of confusion between Community Trademark application 3.478.311 ‘Caffé KIMBO & Design’ and earlier Spanish registration 291.655 for BIMBO, both registered to cover goods in class 30, the earlier trademark was not taken into account as a trademark with reputation but as a well-known trademark.
                           The Appellant proved that BIMBO is a trademark with reputation, referring t o Judgment of General Court ruling on Case T-357/11, dated 14 December 2012, which declares that BIMBO is a reputed Trademark.
                           Both as a well-known and as a reputed trademark, the comparison between the goods shows a high likelihood of confusion, which was not taken into account, the General Court considering them different enough to avoid confusion between goods of the same nature, origin, destination and sales channels.
                           A more accurate comparison should have determined that there exits a high risk of confusion and therefore should have resulted in the refusal of all goods of class 30, including, obviously, refusal of ‘flour, confectionery, ices, yeast and baking-powder’.
                           Both as a well-known and as a reputed trademark, comparison between the signs shows a high risk of confusion. BIMBO has proved 92% of brand awareness, and a market share of 60%, and deserves special protection. Therefore CTM application 3.478.311 ‘Caffé KIMBO & Design’ should have been refused in its entirety for goods of class 30.
                           Registration of CTM application 3.478.311 ‘Caffé KIMBO & Design’ will take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the mark and is, or will be, detrimental to it.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, p. 1

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


title: Case C-448/10 P: Appeal brought on 15 September 2010 by ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2010 in Case T-62/08 Thyssen Krupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA v European Commission

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/20

         Appeal brought on 15 September 2010 by ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2010 in Case T-62/08 Thyssen Krupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-448/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 317/36
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA (represented by: T. Salonico, G. Barone and A. Marega, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal (1) and annul the contested decision (2) in so far as they declare that the disputed measure is not compensatory in nature, and hold it, on the contrary, to be unlawful and incompatible State aid; and/or

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it declares that the recovery order contained in the contested decision is not contrary to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and, accordingly, annul the contested decision in so far as it orders Italy to proceed without delay with the recovery of the aid and interest; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal is flawed and must therefore be set aside on the following grounds:

               1.

               infringement of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, and contradictory reasoning and manifest error as a result of the distortion of the evidence provided in relation to the interpretation of the disputed measure as State aid and not as a compensatory measure in favour of the appellant. The General Court erred in interpreting restrictively the rules and the national case-law relied on at first instance by the appellant, which demonstrate that the disputed measure does not constitute State aid but a continuation of the compensation strategy originally provided for by the Italian legislature in 1962 and acknowledged by the Commission and the General Court;

               2.

               infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, (3) and contradictory and insufficient reasoning, in that the General Court found that the recovery order contained in the contested decision is not contrary to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The judgment of the General Court is flawed and inadequately reasoned in so far as it found that the Commission’s lengthy silence vis-à-vis the clarifications provided by the Italian authorities at the end of 1991 — concerning the fact that the first temporal extension of the Terni tariff was a continuation of the original compensation strategy — is not a sufficient basis for the creation of a legitimate expectation on the part of the appellant that the temporal extensions of the Terni tariff, including the disputed measure, do not constitute State aid.

      (1)  Judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 in Case T-62/08.

      (2)  Commission Decision 2008/408/EC of 20 November 2007 on the State aid C 36/A/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy in favour of ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (OJ 2008 L 144, p. 37).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 28 February 1997 by Giorgio Lebedef against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-42/97)

text:
No C 166/ 14          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      31 . 5 . 97
Action brought on 28 February 1997 by Giorgio Lebedef                established at Périgueux ( France ), Serval, established at
   against the Commission of the European Communities                Sainte Eanne ( France ), Besnier Industrie, established at
                        ( Case T-42/97)                              Bourgbarre ( France ), Sovida, established at Chateaubriand
                                                                     ( France ), Sica Ouest Elevage, established at Ploudaniel
                          ( 97/C 166/31 )
                                                                     ( France ), Guinde, established at Montauban de Bretagne
                 (Language of the case: French)                      ( France ), Tarbouriech, established at Villeneuve sur Lot
                                                                     ( France ), Mamellor, established at Charnay les Macon
An action against the Commission of the European                     ( France ), Coopagri Bretagne, established at Landerneau
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    (France ), Collet et Compagnie, established at
Instance of the European Communities on 28 February                  Chateaubourg (France ), Kermene SA, established at Saint
1997 by Giorgio Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg                   Jacut du Mene (France ), and Vals, established at
(Luxembourg ), represented by Gilles Bounéou, of the                 Champagne (France ), represented by Deborah Kryvian, of
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                       the Rouen Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Luxembourg at his Chambers, 15 Avenue du Bois.                       at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
— principally, annul the implied decision rejecting Mr               — annul Commission Regulation No 18/97 adopted on
     Lebedef's request for secondment on union duties,                      8 January 1997,
— alternatively, and so far as is necessary:
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs.
     — declare the procedure known as 'secondment on
         union duties' unlawful,
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     — annul the Commission's decision not to put an end
         to all secondments on union duties already granted          The applicants, French companies producing veal for
         in the past,                                                human consumption, who are already contesting, before
     — order the Commission to pay all the costs .                   the Court of First Instance, Council Regulation No 2222/
                                                                     96 H and Commission Regulation No 2311 /96 ( 2 ), are
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  applying in the present case for annulment of Commission
                                                                     Regulation ( EEC) No 18/97 of 8 January 1997 amending
The applicant, a member of the union 'Action & Defense               Regulation (EEC ) No 3886/92 laying down detailed rules
— Luxembourg', considers that the Commission's refusal,              for the application of premium schemes in the beef and
first, to allow him secondment on union duties in his                veal sector ( 3 ), inasmuch as it increases the veal carcase
capacity as representative of the abovementioned union               reference weight for Germany from 103 kilograms to 112
and, second, to take a decision concerning the lawfulness            kilograms.
and validity of secondment on union duties allowed in the
past constitutes infringement of Articles 24a, 25 , 37, 38           The applicants also plead unequal treatment and anti
and 39 of the Staff Regulations and the framework                    competitive discrimination. They maintain that the
agreement governing the relations between the institution            increase in the German carcase reference weight to a
and the trade unions and staff associations and                      weight higher than that in respect of France, which has
Convention No 151 of the International Labour                        been fixed without leaving the competent French
Organization concerning employment relationships in                  authorities any discretion whatever, increases the
public service, which entered into force on 25 February              distortion of competition already criticized in the previous
1981 .                                                               cases, thereby directly benefiting German operators.
                                                                     H Cases T-14/97 and T-15/97 ( OJ No C 94 , 22 . 3 . 1997 ).
                                                                     ( 2 ) Case T-20/97 ( OJ No C 94, 22 . 3 . 1997 ).
                                                                     H OJ No L 5 , 9 . 1 . 1997, p . 17.
Action brought on 7 March 1997 by Sofivo and Others
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-61/97)
                          ( 97/C 166/32 )
                                                                     Action brought on 10 March 1997 by Société Générale
                 (Language of the case: French)                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-62/97)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                                ( 97/C 166/33 )
Instance of the European Communities on 7 March 1997
by Sofivo, established at Conde sur Vire ( France ), Sofivo                            (Language of the case: French)
Production, established at Brece ( France ), Sovinor,
established at Conde sur Vire (France ), Denkavit France,            An action against the Commission of the European
established at Montreuil-Bellay ( France ), Sobeval Viande,          Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case F-105/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 6 March 2008 — R bis v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Actions — Action for damages — Conditions under which the probationary period progressed — Extension of probationary period — Establishment as an official — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/32

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 6 March 2008 — R bis v Commission
   (Case F-105/07)
   (Staff cases - Officials - Actions - Action for damages - Conditions under which the probationary period progressed - Extension of probationary period - Establishment as an official - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 116/60)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: R bis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Martins, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Re:
   Annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision of 13 February 2007 rejecting the applicant's complaint and claim concerning the compensation for the damage that the applicant suffered as a result of the wrongful conduct of the Commission, in particular in connection with the applicant's probationary period — Claim for damages
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

               2.

               Each party is to bear its own costs.


title: Case T-307/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 October 2009 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones (4 OUT Living) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community mark 4 OUT Living — Earlier national figurative mark Living & Co — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 October 2009 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones (4 OUT Living)
   (Case T-307/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community mark 4 OUT Living - Earlier national figurative mark Living & Co - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2009/C 297/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks and C. Fürsen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Manea and G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones, SL (Cuarte de Huerva, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2008 (Case R 1199/2007-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones, SL and Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.


title: Case C-475/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 8 August 2017 — AS Viking Motors, OÜ TKM Beauty Eesti, AS TKM King, Kaubamaja AS, Selver AS v Tallinna linn, Maksu- ja Tolliamet

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 8 August 2017 — AS Viking Motors, OÜ TKM Beauty Eesti, AS TKM King, Kaubamaja AS, Selver AS v Tallinna linn, Maksu- ja Tolliamet
   (Case C-475/17)
   (2017/C 347/20)
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Riigikohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: AS Viking Motors, OÜ TKM Beauty Eesti, AS TKM King, Kaubamaja AS, Selver AS

      Defendants: Tallinna linn, Maksu- ja Tolliamet

      Question referred

   Is Article 401 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding a national tax which applies generally and is proportionate to the price, but which, pursuant to the relevant provisions, is to be levied only at the stage of the sale of goods or services to a consumer, with the result that the final tax burden rests ultimately with the consumer, and which compromises the operation of the common system of value added tax and distorts competition?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-571/13: Order of the President of the Court of 14 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Annegret Weitkämper-Krug v NRW Bank — Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/20

         Order of the President of the Court of 14 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Annegret Weitkämper-Krug v NRW Bank — Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts
   (Case C-571/13) (1)

   2014/C 261/37
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case C-196/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Sicilia (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2008 — Acoset SpA v Conferenza Sindaci e Presidenza Prov.Reg.ATO Idrico Ragusa and Others

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Sicilia (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2008 — Acoset SpA v Conferenza Sindaci e Presidenza Prov.Reg.ATO Idrico Ragusa and Others
   (Case C-196/08)
   (2008/C 197/14)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Sicilia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Acoset SpA

      Defendants: Conferenza Sindaci e Presidenza Prov.Reg.ATO Idrico Ragusa and Others
   Question referred
   Is the model of a semi-public company formed specifically to provide a particular public service of industrial importance and possessing a single corporate purpose, to which that service is awarded directly, the private ‘industrial’ and ‘operational’ participant in the company being selected by means of a public and open procedure, after verification of the financial and technical requirements and of the operating and managerial requirements specific to the service to be performed and the specific services to be provided, consistent with Community law and in particular with the obligations of transparency and free competition referred to in Articles 43, 49 and 86 of the Treaty?


title: Case C-66/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 8 February 2013 — Green Network SpA v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 8 February 2013 — Green Network SpA v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas
   (Case C-66/13)
   2013/C 147/10
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Green Network SpA

      Defendant: Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it inconsistent with the correct application of Articles 3(2) and 216 TFEU — according to which the Union has exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when that conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or in so far as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope, with the twofold consequence that, first, the power to conclude with non-member States agreements that affect common rules or alter their operation, or [affect] a sector completely governed by Community law and for which the Union has exclusive competence, is centralised within the European Union itself and, secondly, that such authority no longer resides individually or collectively with the Member States — and of Article 5 of Directive 2001/77/EC, for a national provision ([Article] 20(3) of Legislative Decree No 387 of 2003) to make the recognition of the guarantees of origin issued by third States subject to the conclusion of an appropriate international agreement between the Italian State and the third State in question?

               2.

               Are the national rules at issue inconsistent with the correct application of the abovementioned Community rules, when the Non-Member State is the Swiss Confederation, linked to the European Union by a free trade agreement concluded on 22 July 1972 and entered into force on 1 January 1973?

               3.

               Is it inconsistent with the correct application of the Community rules referred to in question (i) for the provision of national law, contained in Article 4(6) of the Ministerial Decree of 11 November 1999, to lay down that, when electricity is imported from non-Member States of the European Union, acceptance of the application is conditional upon the conclusion of an agreement between the National Grid Manager and an equivalent local authority determining the detailed rules for the necessary checks?

               4.

               In particular, is it inconsistent with the proper application of the Community rules at issue for the agreement under Article 4(6) of the Ministerial Decree of November 1999 to consist of a merely tacit agreement, never set out in official documents and the subject of a mere statement by the appellant, which is unable to provide details of its essential elements?


title: Case T-385/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — BP Products North America v Council (Dumping — Subsidies — Imports of biodiesel originating in the United States — Circumvention — Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 — Slightly modified like product — Legal certainty — Misuse of powers — Manifest errors of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — BP Products North America v Council
   (Case T-385/11) (1)

   (Dumping - Subsidies - Imports of biodiesel originating in the United States - Circumvention - Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 - Slightly modified like product - Legal certainty - Misuse of powers - Manifest errors of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration)
   2014/C 52/59
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BP Products North America Inc. (Naperville, Illinois, United States) (represented initially by C. Farrar, Solicitor, H.-J. Prieß, B. Sachs and M. Schütte, lawyers, and subsequently by C. Farrar, H.-J. Prieß, M. Schütte and K. Arend, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents), and by European Biodiesel Board (EBB) (represented by: O. Prost and M.-S. Dibling, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for the partial annulment, first, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 443/2011 of 5 May 2011 extending the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 598/2009 on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America to imports of biodiesel consigned from Canada, whether declared as originating in Canada or not, and extending the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 598/2009 to imports of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of biodiesel originating in the United States of America, and terminating the investigation in respect of imports consigned from Singapore (OJ 2011 L 122, p. 1) and, secondly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 444/2011 of 5 May 2011 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 599/2009 on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America to imports of biodiesel consigned from Canada, whether declared as originating in Canada or not, and extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 599/2009 to imports of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of biodiesel originating in the United States of America, and terminating the investigation in respect of imports consigned from Singapore (OJ 2011 L 122, p. 12), in so far as those regulations affect the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders BP Products North America Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union and the European Biodiesel Board (EBB);

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case F-103/07 ( OJ C 315, 22.12.2007, p. 45 )

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/39

         Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case F-103/07

      (
            Official Journal of the European Union C 45 of 22.12.2007, p. 45
         )

   (2008/C 79/75)
   The notice in the OJ in Case F-103/07 Duta v Court of Justice is to be read as follows:

         ‘Action brought on 5 October 2007 — Duta v Court of Justice
         (Case F-103/07)
         (2006/C 000/01)
         Language of the case: French
         Parties

            Applicant: Radu Duta (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Krieg, lawyer)

            Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities
         Form of order sought
         The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

                     —

                     annul the contested decisions,

                     —

                     refer the case back to the competent authority,

                     —

                     order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 1 as damages,

                     —

                     order the defendant to pay the costs.

               Pleas in law and main arguments
         By his action, the applicant challenges the rejection of his candidature for a post of Legal Secretary to a judge of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities. The rejection took place by circular letter of 24 January 2007, although the judge in question had previously shown a lively interest in the applicant's candidature.
         The applicant pleads, first, the nullity of the decision to reject his complaint. It was dealt with by the “Committee of the Court of First Instance with power to determine complaints” the composition of which does not meet the requirements for a fair hearing as defined by Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The members of the Court of First Instance sitting as that committee cannot determine with complete impartiality cases concerning one of their colleagues.
         Secondly, the applicant pleads that he was the victim of discrimination. The judge in question did not exercise his or her discretion reasonably.
         Finally, the applicant submits that, in any event, the contested decisions infringe the general principles of transparency, good faith and the protection of legitimate expectations.’.