title: Case C-323/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania)) — E. ON Global Commodities SE, formerly E.ON Energy Trading SE v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului București — Serviciul de administrare a contribuabililor nerezidenți (Directive 79/1072/EEC — Common system of value added tax — Taxable persons residing in another Member State — Rules for refund of VAT — Taxable persons designating a tax representative in accordance with provisions of national law preceding accession to the European Union — Precluded — Meaning of ‘taxable person not established in the territory of the country’ — Condition of not being established — Condition of no supply of goods or services — Supplies of electricity to taxable dealers — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 171)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/7

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania)) — E. ON Global Commodities SE, formerly E.ON Energy Trading SE v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului București — Serviciul de administrare a contribuabililor nerezidenți
   (Case C-323/12) (1)

   (Directive 79/1072/EEC - Common system of value added tax - Taxable persons residing in another Member State - Rules for refund of VAT - Taxable persons designating a tax representative in accordance with provisions of national law preceding accession to the European Union - Precluded - Meaning of ‘taxable person not established in the territory of the country’ - Condition of not being established - Condition of no supply of goods or services - Supplies of electricity to taxable dealers - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 171)
   2014/C 93/11
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel București

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: E. ON Global Commodities SE, formerly E.ON Energy Trading SE

      Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului București — Serviciul de administrare a contribuabililor nerezidenți

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel București — Interpretation of Articles 1, 3, 4 and 6 of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11) — Refund of the VAT in one Member State to taxable persons established in another Member State and having, in the first State, appointed a tax representative in accordance with the provisions of national law applicable before that State acceded to the European Union — Condition that the taxable person should not be registered in the Member State of refund — Concept of a condition in addition to those laid down in Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 79/1072/EEC — Whether compatible with Article 6 of that directive — Direct effect of Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 79/1072/EEC.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The provisions of the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, read together with Articles 38, 171 and 195 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2007/75/EC of 20 December 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person established in one Member State and who has made supplies of electricity to taxable dealers established in another Member State has the right to rely on the Eighth Directive 79/1072 in the latter State in order to obtain a refund of input value added tax. That right is not precluded merely by the designation of a tax representative who is identified for value added tax purposes in the latter State.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.


title: Case T-495/10: Action brought on 7 October 2010 — Bank Saderat v Council

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/55

         Action brought on 7 October 2010 — Bank Saderat v Council
   (Case T-495/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/85
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Saderat plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Gadhia, S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Anderson, QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul paragraph 5 of Table B of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 (1) in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               annul paragraph 7 of Table B of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (2) in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               declare Article 7(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (3) inapplicable to the applicant; and

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation No 668/2010 and of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision. Furthermore, the applicant applies, in accordance with Article 277 TFUE, for the inapplicability of Article 7(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007.
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-492/10 Melli Bank v Council.

      (1)  Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25

      (2)  Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1


title: Case T-48/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014  — Euroscript — Polska v European Parliament (Public service contracts — Public procurement procedure — Supply of translation services into Polish — Decision amending the decision to place the applicant in first place on the list of successful tenderers — Award of the main framework contract to another tenderer — Request for re-evaluation — Time-limit — Suspension of procedure — Transparency — Equal treatment)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Euroscript — Polska v European Parliament
   (Case T-48/12) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Public procurement procedure - Supply of translation services into Polish - Decision amending the decision to place the applicant in first place on the list of successful tenderers - Award of the main framework contract to another tenderer - Request for re-evaluation - Time-limit - Suspension of procedure - Transparency - Equal treatment))
   2014/C 292/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Euroscript — Polska Sp. Z.o.o. (Krakow, Poland) (represented by: J.-F. Steichen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Daire and P. Biström, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 9 December 2011 amending the decision of 18 October 2011 to classify the applicant in first place on the list of successful tenderers and to award it the main contract under public procurement procedure PL/2011/EU, concerning the supply of translation services into Polish (OJ 2011/S 56-090361), and, in the alternative, annulment of that public procurement procedure.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 9 December 2011 amending the decision of 18 October 2911 classifying Euroscript — Polska Sp. Z.o.o. in first place on the list of successful tenderes and awarding it the main contract under the public procurement procedure PL/2011/EU, concerning the supply of translation services into Polish (OJ 2011/S 56 090361.

               2.

               Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14 April 2012.


title: Case T-65/03: Action brought on 25 February 2003 by Fondation Alsace against Commission of the European Communities

text:
26.4.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 101/51
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     annul the implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint
                                                                                of 16 July 2002;
Trade mark concerned:          QUICK-GRIP.        —    Application
                               No 1760867.                                —     order the Commission to pay the costs even in the event
                                                                                that the present application is dismissed.
Product or service:            ‘Hand tools, clamps, c-clamps, bar
                               clamps, hold-down clamps, weld-
                               ing clamps, chain clamps, locking
                               bar clamps, locking hold-down
                               clamps, locking pipe clamps, pipe          Pleas in law and main arguments
                               clamps, part and fittings for the
                               aforesaid goods’ in International
                               Class 8.                                   In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges, first, lack of
                                                                          a statement of reasons. The applicant claims furthermore that
Decision        challenged     Refusal of registration.                   the assessment of the comparative merits of the officials
before the Board of                                                       eligible for promotion was incorrect and that it was not carried
Appeal:                                                                   out in relation to all the officials eligible for promotion.
Pleas in Law relied on:        Incorrect       application       of
                               Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Regu-
                               lation No 40/94.
                                                                          Action brought on 25 February 2003 by Fondation Alsace
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 24 February 2003 by Georges Vassila-                                              (Case T-65/03)
  kis against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (2003/C 101/89)
                          (Case T-62/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (2003/C 101/88)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 25 February 2003 by Fondation
                                                                          Alsace, whose registered office is at Strasbourg (France),
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 represented by François Ruhlmann, lawyer.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 February 2003 by Georges
Vassilakis, residing in Brussels, represented by Georgy Manalis,
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
lawyer.
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the Commission of 20 December
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     2002 or, in the alternative, the preceding decision related
                                                                                to it;
—     annul the decision of the Commission of the European
      Communities, as the appointing authority, not to include            —     order the Commission to pay the Association Fondation
      the applicant’s name in the list of officials promoted to                 Alsace EUR 3 000 by way of preparation allowance and
      Grade A 5 in the 2002 exercise to promote officials from                  costs of proceedings;
      one career to the next, as mentioned in Administrative
      Information No 40-2002 of 17 May 2002;                              —     order the European Commission to pay all the costs of
                                                                                the proceedings.
—     annul the list of officials promoted to A 5 in the 2002
      exercise to promote officials from one career to the next,                Alternatively:
      as mentioned in Administrative Information No 40-2002
      of 17 May 2002, insofar as it does not include the                  —     grant the Association Fondation Alsace the longest period
      applicant’s name;                                                         possible for payment.
 ---pagebreak--- C 101/52                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            —     order the European Parliament to grant to the applicant
                                                                                the resettlement allowance provided for under Article 6
                                                                                of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations with retroactive
The present application is directed against a decision of the                    effect from 1 June 2002;
Commission of 20 December 2002 requiring the Fondation
Alsace to repay to it EUR 18 000 (principal sum) as a result of            —     order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the
its failure to fulfil subvention agreement PSS*/0534, concern-                   proceedings.
ing the organisation in Strasbourg of a conference from
29 June to 2 July 1992 entitled: ‘Quel avenir pour la
xénotransplantation et éthique et xénotransplantation’.
According to the Commission, the applicant failed to fulfil one            Pleas in law and main arguments
of its obligations, namely to provide scientific reports.
                                                                           The applicant, who is a former official of the European
                                                                           Parliament, was retired with entitlement to receive an invalidity
                                                                           pension as from 1 June 1999. On 31 May 2002 the applicant
In support of its claims, in addition to pleading lack of a                submitted to the defendant an application for the resettlement
statement of reasons, the applicant alleges:                               allowance provided for under Article 6 of Annex VII to the
                                                                           Staff Regulations, stating that he had, on the previous day,
—     expiry of time-limits to bring an action for restitution             definitively resettled in England. Following the defendant’s
      inasmuch as reimbursement of the subsidy in question is              rejection of that application, the applicant brought the present
      required more than 10 years after it was granted;                    action, invoking three pleas in law in support thereof:
—     manifest error of assessment in the present case, in that            —     manifest error of assessment;
      the condition relating to distribution of scientific reports
      was met, having regard to the nationality and number of              —     breach of the provisions of the second subparagraph of
      participants at the conference who were all leading                        Article 6(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;
      specialists in the field with which the conference was
      concerned.                                                           —     infringement of the obligation to state reasons.
                                                                           Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Herbert Meister
                                                                           against Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Miguel Angel                                                       (OHIM)
      Poveda Morillas against the European Parliament
                                                                                (Case T-76/03)
                           (Case T-69/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 101/91)
                          (2003/C 101/90)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                           Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
                                                                           of the European Communities on 28 February 2003 by
An action against the European Parliament was brought before               Herbert Meister, residing in Muchamiel (Spain), represented by
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                 Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.
28 February 2003 by Miguel Angel Poveda Morillas, residing in
Folkestone (United Kingdom), represented by Patrick Goergen,
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                           —     annul the decision of 22 April 2002 of the President of
                                                                                the Office transferring the applicant together with his
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      post as legal adviser to the Vice-President for Legal Affairs
                                                                                with effect from 1 May 2002;
—     annul the decision of the European Parliament of 3 June
      2002 refusing to grant to the applicant the resettlement             —     order the applicant’s rights to be fully restored, which
      allowance provided for under Article 6 of Annex VII to                     means retransferring him and his post to his original
      the Staff Regulations;                                                     department, in its original structure;


title: Case T-160/08 P: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Commission v Putterie-De-Beukelaer (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Annulment at first instance of the career development report — 2005 reporting period — Rules applicable — Heading ‘potential’ — Evaluation procedure — Attestation procedure)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Commission v Putterie-De-Beukelaer
   (Case T-160/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Annulment at first instance of the career development report - 2005 reporting period - Rules applicable - Heading ‘potential’ - Evaluation procedure - Attestation procedure)
   2010/C 234/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and K. Hermann, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Françoise Putterie-De-Beukelaer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal seeking to have set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 February 2008 in Case F-31/07 Putterie-De-Beukelaer v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 February 2008 in Case F-31/07 Putterie-De-Beukelaer v Commission (not yet published in the ECR);

               2.

               Refers the case back to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183 of 19.7.2008.


title: Case T-1/16: Action brought on 4 January 2016 — Hitachi-LG Data Storage and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea v Commission

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/50

         Action brought on 4 January 2016 — Hitachi-LG Data Storage and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea v Commission
   (Case T-1/16)
   (2016/C 098/65)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. (Tokyo, Japan), and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: L. Gyselen and N. Ersbøll, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by Article 2(d) of the decision of the Commission of 21 October 2015 in Case AT.39639 — Optical Disk Drives, relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFUE and Article 53 EEA Agreement, thereby reflecting the particularities of the case; and

               —

               order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the Commission.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of good administration and its duty to state reasons by failing to respond to the applicants’ request pursuant to point 37 of the Commission’s 2006 guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) (the ‘Fining Guidelines’).

                           —

                           In the course of the administrative procedure before the Commission, the applicants submitted a request to the Commission for a reduction of the fine in light of ‘particular circumstances’ within the meaning of point 37 of the Fining Guidelines. The Commission’s case team did not respond to this request and the Commission did not address it in its decision. The applicants must assume that the Commission’s services have either not assessed its request at all or that they have not shared any such assessment with the advisory committee and the college of commissioners for their review. As a consequence, it cannot be excluded that, had they done so, the fine ultimately imposed on the applicants might have been lower. The Commission has thus infringed the principle of good administration and its duty to state reasons.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred by failing to depart from the methodology in the Fining Guidelines in order to reduce the fine imposed on the applicants in light of the particularities of the case and the role of the applicants. The ‘particular circumstances’ within the meaning of point 37 of the Fining Guidelines are as follows:

                           —

                           the applicants, who derive the majority of their revenue from one product (optical disk drives), diversified their business in 2014, the year used by the Commission as reference year for the calculation of the 10 % cap set forth in Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003;

                           —

                           the applicants are the only among the companies fined that remain committed to the optical disk drives market and the level of the fine imposed on them will adversely affect their capacity to serve the customers in this market in a sustainable fashion; and

                           —

                           the applicants face a precarious financial situation, while at the same time deploying significant efforts to overcome their financial difficulties.

      (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-527/09: Action brought on 17 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/26

         Action brought on 17 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-527/09)
   2010/C 63/43
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by G. Braun and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Estonia

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC, (1) and by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 29 June 2008.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 157, p. 87.


title: Case C-646/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 3 December 2015 — Trustees of the P Panayi Accumulation & Maintenance Settlements v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 3 December 2015 — Trustees of the P Panayi Accumulation & Maintenance Settlements v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-646/15)
   (2016/C 048/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Trustees of the P Panayi Accumulation & Maintenance Settlements

      Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it compatible with the freedom of establishment, the free movement of capital, or the freedom to provide services for a Member State to enact and maintain legislation such as section 80 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1997 under which a charge to tax arises on the unrealised gains in value of the assets comprised in a trust fund if the trustees of a trust become at any time neither resident nor ordinarily resident in the Member State.

               2.

               On the assumption that such a charge to tax restricts the exercise of the relevant freedom, is such a charge justifiable in accordance with the balanced allocation of powers of taxation, and is such a charge proportionate where the legislation neither grants the trustees the option to defer the charge to tax or to pay in instalments, nor does it take into account any subsequent fall in the value of the trust assets.

               3.

               Are any of the fundamental freedoms engaged where a Member State imposes a charge to tax on unrealised capital gains on the increase in value of assets held by trusts at the time when the majority of the trustees cease to be resident or ordinarily resident in that Member State?

               4.

               Is a restriction on the freedom created by that exit charge justified in order to ensure balanced allocation of powers of taxation, in circumstances where it was possible that capital gains tax might still be imposed on the realised gains, but only if specific circumstances arose in the future?

               5.

               Is proportionality to be determined on the facts of the individual case? In particular, is the restriction created by such a charge to tax proportionate in circumstances where:

                           (a)

                           the legislation makes no provision for an option to defer the payment of tax or for payment in instalments, or for account to be taken of any subsequent fall in the value of the trust assets after the exit,

                           (b)

                           but in the particular circumstances of the assessment to tax under appeal, the assets were sold before the tax was payable and the relevant assets did not decrease in value between the relocation of the trust and the date of sale.


title: Case T-245/06: Action brought on 4 September 2006 — Euro-Information v OHIM (CYBERGUICHET )

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/26

         Action brought on 4 September 2006 — Euro-Information v OHIM (CYBERGUICHET )
   (Case T-245/06)
   (2006/C 261/49)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Européenne de traitement de l'information SAS (Euro-Information) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: P. Greffe, A. Jacquet and J. Schouman, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   Form of order sought by the applicant

               —

               annulment of the whole of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2006, Case R 67/2006-1, which refused the registration of CYBERGUICHET as a Community trade mark under application No 4 114 575 in respect of all the goods and services claimed in Classes 9, 36 and 38;

               —

               registration of CYBERGUICHET as a Community trade mark under application No 4 114 575 in respect of all the goods and services claimed.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Work mark ‘CYBERGUICHET’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 36 and 38 (application No 4 114 575)

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant claims that, contrary to that which the Board of Appeal of OHIM stated in the contested decision, its trade mark is arbitrary and has a sufficiently distinctive character as required by Council Regulation No 40/94 (1) in relation to the goods and services claimed.

      (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-107/08: Action brought on 28 February 2008 — TNC Kazchrome and ENRC Marketing v Council and Commission

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/23

         Action brought on 28 February 2008 — TNC Kazchrome and ENRC Marketing v Council and Commission
   (Case T-107/08)
   (2008/C 116/43)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Joint stock company ‘Transnational Company Kazchrome’ (TNC Kazchrome) (Actobe, Kazakhstan), ENRC Marketing AG (Kloten, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and A. Willems, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested regulation to the extent it imposes anti-dumping measures on imports of SiMn that is produced and/or sold by the applicants;

               —

               order the Council and Commission jointly and severally to pay the applicants damages including interest for harm, that resulted from the wrongful initiation of the case, errors of facts, and erroneous assessment, including the Commission's violations of fundamental principles of Community law, and the wrongful adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 1420/2007;

               —

               order the Commission and Council to bear their own costs and those incurred by the applicants;

               —

               order the Commission to bear its own costs and jointly and severally to bear those incurred by the applicants insofar as they are not covered by the Council.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants, who are respectively producers and exporters of silico-manganese to the European Union, seek the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1420/2007 of 4 December 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silico-manganese originating in the People's Republic of China and Kazakhstan and terminating the proceedings on imports of silico-manganese originating in Ukraine (1).
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the defendants committed manifest errors of assessment, breached the Basic Regulation (2) and failed to state reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC by including Kazakhstan and excluding India from the anti-dumping investigation; by rejecting the applicants' claim that they operate as a single economic entity; when determining the applicants' export price; when assessing whether and to what extend the imports of silico-manganese from Kazakhstan caused injury to the Community industry; by cumulating the imports from Kazakhstan with the imports from China for the purposes of this assessment and when assessing the Community interest.
   The applicants furthermore submit that the Community institutions breached their right to be heard and the principles of good administration, protection of the applicants legitimate expectations, non-discrimination and proportionality as, among others, the applicants were not given access to information that was relevant to the findings of the Community institutions and as the undertaking offered by the applicants was rejected.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 317, p. 5.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 20 January 1999 by Denkavit Nederland BV against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-20/99)

text:
C 86/30              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  27.3.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Mark in question:                                                  The Commission refused Denkavit Nederland BV's request
                                                                   for access to the Belloli report concerning measures to
                                                                   combat swine fever in the Netherlands.
COMPANYLINE' Ð Application No 000 319038
                                                                   Denkavit's request was based on Commission Decision
Goods or services:                                                 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 8 February 1994 concerning
                                                                   access to Commission documents.
Insurance bodies; financial bodies (class 36)'
                                                                   The Commission's refusal was based on two grounds.
Decision contested before the Board of Appeal
                                                                   1. T h e       comunication         of    the    report    is
                                                                       contrary to the protection of the general
Refusal of registration by the examiner                                interest (namely inspections and inve-
                                                                       stigations)
Pleas in law:
                                                                   According to the Commission, the investigation has not
                                                                   yet been concluded, and is still to be the subject of
Ð infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)               consultation between the Commission and the
    No 40/94                                                       Netherlands authorities.
    Ð misapplication of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation              Referring to press articles, the applicant submits that the
        (EC) No 40/94                                              investigation has been concluded and that there is no
                                                                   question of future consultation, meaning that the refusal is
    Ð failure to take into account Article 12(b) of                based on an error of fact.
        Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                                                   According to the Commission, the report concerns
                                                                   breaches of Community law, and publication would
                                                                   undermine any legal proceedings which may be brought.
                                                                   According to Denkavit, the Netherlands State, against
Action brought on 20 January 1999 by Denkavit                      which those proceedings would be brought, has already
Nederland BV against Commission of the European                    been in possession of the report for some time and the
                        Communities                                differences of opinion between the Netherlands State and
                       (Case T-20/99)                              the Commission as regards the content have been made
                                                                   common knowledge by the press, meaning that the reason
                       (1999/C 86/52)                              for the refusal is also incorrect in that respect.
               (Language of the case: Dutch)                       2. T h e        requirement        of    protection       for
                                                                       b u s i n e s s s e c r e c y.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  According to Denkavit, the Commission should have given
Instance of the European Communities on 20 January                 an abstract description of the type of information
1999 by Denkavit Nederland BV, whose registered office             concerning pig farms contained in the report, without
is at Voorthuizen (The Netherlands), represented by E. A.          referring to the undertakings concerned by name.
Buys, Advocaat.
                                                                   Furthermore, according to Denkavit, business secrets are
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        information which can affect the competitive position of
                                                                   the undertakings concerned. The information in the Belloli
                                                                   report is nothing of the kind, since it concerns the manner
Ð annul the Commission decision of 17 November 1998                in which the pig farms concerned reacted to the measures
    refusing to publish documents,                                 adopted by the Netherlands authorities to combat swine
                                                                   fever. The report therefore contains no business secrets.
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the
    proceedings.


title: Case F-2/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 24 February 2010 — Menghi v ENISA (Civil Service — Temporary staff — Dismissal following end of the probationary period — Psychological harassment)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/57

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 24 February 2010 — Menghi v ENISA
   (Case F-2/09) (1)

   (Civil Service - Temporary staff - Dismissal following end of the probationary period - Psychological harassment)
   2010/C 234/104
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Riccardo Achille Menghi (Cagliari, Italy) (represented by: L. Defalque, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Network and Information Security Agency (represented by: E. Maurage, Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision not to confirm the applicant’s contract after the probationary period and an application for compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 07.03.2009, p. 53.


title: Case C-148/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Riksåklagaren v Zenon Robert Akarsar

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Riksåklagaren v Zenon Robert Akarsar
   (Case C-148/16)
   (2016/C 175/14)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta domstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Riksåklagaren

      Defendant: Zenon Robert Akarsar

      Question referred

   The question concerns the interpretation of Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA (1)).
   Can a Member State refuse to execute a European arrest warrant, which concerns the execution of a custodial sentence which was passed as a combined sentence for a number of offences, when one of those offences does not constitute an offence under the law of the executing Member State and it is not possible in the issuing Member State to order that the sentence be split?
   The offence in question does not constitute such an offence covered by Article 2.2 of the Framework Decision in respect of which the requirement of double criminality cannot be applied.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.


title: Case F-55/08 RENV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1 st Chamber) of 11 November 2014  — Carlo De Nicola v EIB (Civil service — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — EIB staff — Appraisal — Illegality of the decision of the Appeals Committee — No need to adjudicate on the application for compensation)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/33

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 11 November 2014 — Carlo De Nicola v EIB
   (Case F-55/08 RENV) (1)

   ((Civil service - Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside - EIB staff - Appraisal - Illegality of the decision of the Appeals Committee - No need to adjudicate on the application for compensation))
   (2014/C 462/46)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and F. Martin, Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   First, application for partial annulment of a decision of the Appeals Committee concerning the applicant’s appraisal in respect of 2006 and, secondly, application to establish that the applicant is the victim of psychological harassment and for an order that the defendant must cease the activities constituting harassment and pay compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank of 14 December 2007;

               2.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim seeking annulment of the decision of 13 July 2007 not to promote the applicant, on the claim seeking annulment of the appraisal report in respect of 2006 and on the claim seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the psychological harassment;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Declares that the European Investment Bank is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola in Cases F-55/08, T-37/10 P and F-55/08 RENV.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15/8/2008, p. 73.


title: Case C-346/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de travail de Liège — Belgium) — Monique Chateignier v Office national de l'emploi (ONEM) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 39 EC and Articles 3 and 67 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Grant of unemployment benefit subject to the completion of a period of employment in the competent Member State)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/18

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de travail de Liège — Belgium) — Monique Chateignier v Office national de l'emploi (ONEM)
   (Case C-346/05) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 39 EC and Articles 3 and 67 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Grant of unemployment benefit subject to the completion of a period of employment in the competent Member State)
   (2006/C 326/36)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour de travail de Liège
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Monique Chateignier

      Defendant: Office national de l'emploi (ONEM)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de travail de Liège — Interpretation of Article 39(2) EC,
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 39(2) EC and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, are to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the competent institution of the Member State of residence denies unemployment benefits to a national of another Member State on the ground that, on the date when the benefit claim was submitted, the person concerned had not completed a specified period of employment in that Member State of residence, whereas there is no such requirement for nationals of that Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 10.12.2005.


title: Case T-63/02: Action brought on 4 March 2002 by Maria Concetta Cerafogli and Paolo Poloni against European Central Bank

text:
C 131/20                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         1.6.2002
Action brought on 1 March 2002 by Waardals AS against                    —     that the Commission incorrectly calculated the fine and
       the Commission of the European Communities                              incorrectly applied the Guidelines on the method of
                                                                               setting fines. On this point, the applicant states that the
                                                                               fine was increased on the basis of the duration of the
                           (Case T-62/02)                                      infringement and because of the fact that the Commission
                                                                               did not differentiate between the members of the cartel
                          (2002/C 131/38)                                      in an appropriate manner. Moreover, the Commission
                                                                               has not taken into account that the applicant was invited
                                                                               to join a cartel that already existed, and that it never was
                   (Language of the case: English)                             part of the ‘inner circle’, nor has the Commission taken
                                                                               into account that Waardals implemented the agreements
                                                                               in question only to a very slight degree. In setting the
                                                                               fines, the defendant consequently infringed the principles
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      of equal treatment and proportionality and misapplied
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     the Guidelines mentioned above.
European Communities on 1 March 2002 by Waardals AS,
represented by Mr Trygve Olavson Laake and Mr Jan Magne
Langseth of Advokatfirmaet Schjødt AS, Stavanger (Norway).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Article 1 of the Decision in so far as it concerns the
      applicant, or, in the alternative, reduce the duration of
      the infringement in so far as it concerns the applicant;           Action brought on 4 March 2002 by Maria Concetta
                                                                         Cerafogli and Paolo Poloni against European Central Bank
—     annul the fine imposed upon the applicant by Article 3(f)
      of the Decision, or, in the alternative, substantially reduce
      the amount of the fine imposed;                                                              (Case T-63/02)
—     grant its request for measures of organisation of pro-
      cedure including the summoning and hearing of witnesses                                     (2002/C 131/39)
      and access to the Commission’s report from the Hearing;
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          An action against the European Central Bank was brought
                                                                         before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         on 4 March 2002 by Maria Concetta Cerafogli and Paolo
The Decision which is challenged in this case is the same as             Poloni, of Frankfurt am Main, represented by Boris Karthaus,
that in Case T-33/02 Britannia Alloys & Chemicals -v-                    Christian Roth and Tanja Raab-Rhein, lawyers, with an address
Commission. The grounds and main arguments are similar to                for service in Luxembourg.
those raised in that case.
                                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
In particular, the applicant submits:
                                                                         1.    Annul the statements of earnings issued to the applicants
—     that the Commission has based its calculation of the fine                for the month of July 2001;
      on an incorrect assessment of the evidence and facts of
      the case. Firstly, the Commission found that all addressees
      of the Decision committed an infringement of the                   2.    Order the defendant to issue the applicants with state-
      same duration, 4 years and 1 month. In so doing, the                     ments of earnings on the basis of an annual salary
      Commission should have not taken into account that                       adjustment of at least 2,7 % in the month of July 2001;
      Waardals’ infringement ceased between April 1995 and
      August 1995. The defendant should have ignored the
      fact that the applicant withdrew from the cartel and               3.    In the alternative, order the defendant to issue the
      terminated its infringements immediately following the                   applicants with statements of earnings in accordance with
      investigations.                                                          the view of the law taken by the Court;
 ---pagebreak--- 1.6.2002               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 131/21
4.    Order the defendant to pay the applicants the difference        Action brought on 8 March 2002 by Masdar (U.K.) Ltd
      between the statements of earnings actually issued and            against the Commission of the European Communities
      the statements to be issued in accordance with claim 2,
      or in the alternative claim 3;
                                                                                (Case T-68/02)
5.    Order the defendant to pay the costs.                                                   (2002/C 131/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                      European Communities on 8 March 2002 by Masdar (U.K.)
                                                                      Ltd, represented by Mr Philip Bentley QC and Mr Patrick Green
                                                                      of Rosemary Smith & Co, Crowthorne (United Kingdom).
The applicants contest the annual salary adjustment for the
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
year 2001 for staff of the European Central Bank. In 1999 the
Governing Council of the defendant decided that the annual
salary adjustment of the defendant was to be based on the             —     annul the defendant’s refusal to grant the applicant access
average development of nominal salaries of the fifteen national             to the documents mentioned in the applicant’s request
central banks and the Bank for International Settlements as the             dated 16 October 2001;
‘central bank’ of the central banks. This method was to be
applied for three years altogether. By letter of 11 July
2001 the Vice-President of the defendant informed the Staff           —     order the Commission to pay the costs of this application.
Committee that the Governing Council of the defendant
endorsed the Executive Board’s proposal for the salary adjust-
ment for 2001, in accordance with the methodology decided
in 1999. A table annexed to that letter showed that the salary
adjustment for 2001 was to take effect from 1 July 2001 and           Pleas in law and main arguments
would be 2,2 %.
                                                                      The applicant provides consultancy services in the agricultural
                                                                      sector. The applicant was employed by another company in
                                                                      respect of two programs funded by the Commission’s TACIS
On 13 July 2001 the applicants each received statements of            programme. The applicant brought proceedings against this
earnings which were based on the new calculations.                    company before a national Court for the recovery of sums still
                                                                      outstanding. In this respect, the applicant requested access to
                                                                      two audit reports of the Commission established in respect of
                                                                      the contracts in question. This access was refused by the
                                                                      Commission.
The applicants claim that the statements of earnings issued for
July 2001 should be annulled. They submit that the salary
adjustment in 2001 was not the subject of consultation with           The applicant submits that the Commission failed to give
the Staff Committee and is therefore unlawful. The method of          reasons for this decision and has not respected the rights of
calculation applied for the salary adjustment in July 2001            the applicant under Decision 94/90 (1). The applicant further
further infringed Article 13 of the Conditions of Employment,         claims that the Commission violated the principle of good
since it results in a loss of purchasing power at the place of        administration.
employment. A correct method of calculation must take
account at least of the rate of inflation and thus produce a
figure of 2,7 %.
                                                                      (1) 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom: Commission Decision of 8 February
                                                                          1994 on public access to Commission documents (OJ L 46 of
                                                                          18.2.1994, p. 58)


title: Case C-548/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld (Germany) lodged on 30 November 2012 — Marc Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normandes Eurl, Karsten Fräßdorf

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld (Germany) lodged on 30 November 2012 — Marc Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normandes Eurl, Karsten Fräßdorf
   (Case C-548/12)
   2013/C 101/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Krefeld

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant and defendant to the counterclaim: Marc Brogsitter

      Defendants and counterclaimants: Fabrication de Montres Normandes Eurl, Karsten Fräßdorf

      Question referred

   Must Article 5(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a claimant who alleges that he has suffered damage by an anticompetitive act of his contractual partner domiciled in another Contracting State, which is to be regarded in German law as a tortious act, is raising claims against that person based on contract, even in so far as he bases his action on claims relating to tort?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Case T-379/10: Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Keramag Keramische Werke a.o. v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/40

         Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Keramag Keramische Werke a.o. v Commission
   (Case T-379/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/66
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Keramag Keramische Werke AG (Ratingen, Germany); Koralle Sanitärprodukte GmbH (Vlotho, Germany); Koninklijke Sphinx BV (Maastricht, Netherlands); Allia SAS (Avon, France); Produits Céramique de Touraine SA (PCT) (Selles sur Cher, France); and Pozzi Ginori SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: J. Killick, Barrister, P. Lindfelt, lawyer, I. Reynolds, Solicitor, and K. Struckmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision in whole or in part;

               —

               declare that the applicants bear no responsibility for anti-competitive activity in taps and, if necessary, annul the Decision to the extent it may find the applicants so responsible;

               —

               further or in the alternative, reduce the level of the fine;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs;

               —

               make any other order as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Case COMP/39.092) insofar as it holds them liable for participation in a continuing agreement or concerted practice in bathroom fittings and fixtures sector covering the territory of Germany, Austria, Italy, France, Belgium and the Netherlands.
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on seven pleas in law.
   First, they submit that the Commission failed to assess or investigate the economic context and thereby failed to establish the anti-competitive object of the alleged infringements to the requisite legal standard. The applicants contend that the Commission was not legally entitled to presume (or equally to find) that discussions (i) between non-competitors and (ii) about a non-economic price which no market actor pays had anti-competitive object.
   Second, they claim that the Commission would have been wrong to hold the applicants responsible for an infringement to taps given the first plea and the fact that the applicants do not produce taps.
   Third, the applicants argue that the Commission failed to establish the existence of the alleged infringement to the requisite legal standard, notably because its analysis of the evidence was erroneous in France, Italy and in relation to Keramag Keramische Werke Aktiengesellschaft in Germany.
   Fourth, they submit that the Commission has not established an interest in finding an infringement in the Netherlands that was time-barred.
   Fifth, the applicants contend that the Commission failed

               (i)

               to adequately set out the allegations in the Statement of Objections and

               (ii)

               to retain and disclose relevant and potentially exculpatory evidence.

         These procedural failings harmed, in the applicants’ view, their rights of defence.
   Sixth, the applicants claim that the investigation in this case was selective and arbitrary in nature given that many companies that are alleged to have participated in the supposedly illegal meetings or discussions were never prosecuted.
   Seventh, they submit that the fine was unjustifiably and disproportionately high, in particular due to the absence of implementation or effects on the market. Therefore, the applicants invite the Court to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 261 TFEU to reduce the fine.


title: Case T-201/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — The Body Shop International v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPA WISDOM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark SPA WISDOM — Earlier Benelux word mark SPA — Relative grounds for refusal — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — The Body Shop International v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPA WISDOM)
   (Case T-201/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark SPA WISDOM - Earlier Benelux word mark SPA - Relative grounds for refusal - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 156/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Body Shop International plc (Littlehampton, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Vernimme, H. Viaene, S. Vandewynckel and D. Gillet, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2014 (Case R 1516/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between The Body Shop International plc and Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders The Body Shop International plc to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case C-220/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 11 May 2012 — Andreas Ingemar Thiele Meneses v Region Hannover

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 11 May 2012 — Andreas Ingemar Thiele Meneses v Region Hannover
   (Case C-220/12)
   2012/C 287/29
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Andreas Ingemar Thiele Meneses

      Defendant: Region Hannover

      Question referred

   Does the right to freedom of movement and freedom of residence conferred on a Union citizen by Articles 20 and 21 TFEU preclude a regulatory system in national law under which German nationals with a permanent residence outside the Federal Republic of Germany may be awarded an education grant to attend an education establishment situated in a Member State of the European Union only if the education establishment is either in the country of permanent residence or in a neighbouring state of that country and, moreover, special circumstances of the individual case justify the grant?


title: Case T-458/16: Action brought on 28 July 2016 — Acquafarm v Commission

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/47

         Action brought on 28 July 2016 — Acquafarm v Commission
   (Case T-458/16)
   (2016/C 419/63)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Acquafarm, SL (Huelva, Spain) (represented by: A. Pérez Moreno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant requests that the General Court award it compensation for the damage caused by the lack of coordination of administrative action relating to the aquaculture facility, located in Gibraleón (Huelva), which resulted in serious injury to the legitimate expectations placed in that entity, arising as a result of the grant of aid for the implementation of an aquaculture project, which, in parallel, the European Union makes unviable as a result of a ban on the export of the species for the breeding of which the facilities are being built.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant in the present proceedings is a company dedicated to research, innovation and industrial development in the field of aquaculture; it was created in 2004 for the implementation of an aquaculture project for the breeding and marketing of the Cherax Cuadricarinatus shellfish (Australian freshwater lobster). That project was awarded the corresponding aid from the European Union in accordance with the provisions set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 498/2007 of 26 March 2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund (OJ 2007 L 120, p. 1).
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on Article 340 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, for consideration thereof, on Spanish law on administrative responsibility, as stated in Article 106 of the Constitution and Articles 139 and following of Ley 30/92, de 26 de noviembre, de Régimen Jurídico de las Administraciones Públicas y del Procedimiento Administrativo Común (Law 30/92 of 26 November on the legal rules governing public authorities and the common administrative procedure).
   In that regard, the applicant states that:

               —

               The aid received had been allocated to works in the aquaculture industry, since neither the implementation of the project carried out with that aid or the investments made had ever met any obstacles.

               —

               Once the project was in the final stages of implementation, the company received notification from Australia that it was not possible to import the relevant species to the European Union as a result of the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008 of 12 December 2008 implementing Council Directive 2006/88/EC as regards conditions and certification requirements for the placing on the market and the import into the Community of aquaculture animals and products thereof and laying down a list of vector species (OJ 2008 L 337, p. 41).

               —

               As a result, the company has suffered various forms of injury, as made clear in the evidence adduced, amounting to a total of EUR five million.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Kiel by order of that court of 13 October 1998 in the case of PreussenElektra Aktiengesellschaft against Schleswag Aktiengesellschaft (Case C-379/98)

text:
19.12.98              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 397/19
(5) Is the prohibition on discrimination, whether overt or        on 16 October 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case
     covert, contained in Article 9 of the EEC-Turkey             of The Queen against Minsitry of Agriculture, Fisheries
     Agreement, and/or Article 12 of the EEC-Turkey               and Food, ex parte: J. H. Cooke and Sons (a firm), on the
     Agreement and/or Article 37 of the Additional                following question:
     Protocol to be interpreted as precluding a Member
     State from applying its immigration rules in a way
     that grants a Turkish national temporary, rather than        Is the expression an area which has been cultivated in the
     permanent, permission to engage in employment?               previous year with a view to a harvest' in Article 2 of
                                                                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 762/94 (1) of 6 April
                                                                  1994, laying down detailed rules for the application of
                                                                  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 (2) with regard to
                                                                  the set-aside scheme, to be interpreted as including land
                                                                  which has been in grass in the previous year, where the
                                                                  grass has been cut and used for silage?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division, by
                                                                  (1) OJ L 90, 7.4.1994, p. 8.
order of that court of 21 July 1998, in the case of The
                                                                  (2) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 12.
Queen against Secretary of State for the Environment,
Transport and the Regions, ex parte: First Corporate
                         Shipping Ltd
                       (Case C-371/98)
                        (98/C 397/31)
                                                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Kiel
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the            by order of that court of 13 October 1998 in the case of
European Communities by an order of the High Court of             PreussenElektra Aktiengesellschaft against Schleswag
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division, of                                  Aktiengesellschaft
21 July 1998, which was received at the Court Registry on                                (Case C-379/98)
16 October 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
The Queen against Secretary of State for the Environment,                                  (98/C 397/33)
Transport and the Regions, ex parte: First Corporate
Shipping Ltd, on the following question:
                                                                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                  European Communities by order of the Second
Is a Member State entitled or obliged to take account of          Commercial Chamber of the Landgericht Kiel (Regional
the considerations laid down in Article 2(3) and Council          Court, Kiel) of 13 October 1998, received at the Court
Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on the conservation of natural            Registry on 23 October 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
habitats and of wild fauna and flora, namely, economic,           the case of PreussenElektra Aktiengesellschaft against
social and cultural requirements and regional and local           Schleswag Aktiengesellschaft on the following questions:
characteristics, when deciding which sites to propose to
the Commission pursuant to Article 4(1) of that Directive
and/or defining the boundaries of such sites?
                                                                  (a) Do the rules on payment and compensation for
                                                                       supplies of electricity, laid down in Paragraph 2 or 3
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.                                         or 4 or in Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the Law governing the
                                                                       supply of electricity from renewable energy sources
                                                                       over the public grid (Law on the supply of electricity)
                                                                       of 7 December 1990 (BGBl I, at p. 26 to 33), in the
                                                                       version set out in Article 3(2) of the Law reforming
                                                                       the law governing the energy supply industry of
                                                                       24 April 1998 (BGBl I, p. 730 (p. 734 to 736)),
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 92 of
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division, by                the EC Treaty?
order of that court, of 25 August 1998, in the case of
The Queen against Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
       Food, ex parte: J. H. Cooke and Sons (a firm)                   Is Article 92 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
                       (Case C-372/98)                                 meaning that the underlying concept of aid also
                                                                       covers national rules for the benefit of the recipient of
                        (98/C 397/32)                                  the payment, under which the costs entailed are not
                                                                       met, either directly or indirectly, from the public
                                                                       budget but are borne by individual undertakings in a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 sector, which have a statutory obligation to purchase
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                  at fixed minimum prices, and which are precluded by
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division, of                law and circumstance from passing those costs on to
25 August 1998, which was received at the Court Registry               the final consumer?
 ---pagebreak--- C 397/20             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        19.12.98
     Is Article 92 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as                  (a) awards or grants paid by one or more contracting
     meaning that the underlying concept of aid also                           authorities for the support of research work;
     covers national rules which merely govern the
     apportionment of the costs between undertakings at
                                                                          (b) consideration paid by one or more contracting
     the various production levels which have arisen
                                                                               authorities for the supply of services comprising
     through purchasing obligations and minimum prices,
                                                                               research work;
     where the legislature's approach creates in practice a
     permanent burden for which the undertakings affected
     obtain no consideration?                                             (c) consideration paid by one or more contracting
                                                                               authorities for the supply of other services, such
                                                                               as consultancy or the organisation of conferences;
(b) In the event that the second question is answered in
     the negative in respect of Paragraph 4 of the Law on
     the supply of electricity, is Article 93(3) of the EC                (d) student grants paid by local education authorities
     Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that its restrictive                  to universities in respect of tuition for named
     effects apply not only to the benefit itself but also to                  students.
     implementing rules such as Paragraph 4 of the Law
     on the supply of electricity?
                                                                     2. What percentage or other meaning is to be given to
                                                                          the expression for the most part' in Article 1 of the
(c) In the event that questions (a) and (b) are answered in               Directives?
     the negative, is Article 30 of the EC Treaty to be
     interpreted as meaning that a quantitative restriction
     on imports Ð and/or a measure having equivalent                 3. If the expression for the most part' is defined in terms
     effect as between Member States for the purposes of                  of a percentage figure, is the calculation limited to
     the aforementioned provision Ð arises where a                        considering sources of finance for academic and
     provision of national law places undertakings under                  related purposes or should it include finance obtained
     an obligation to purchase electricity produced from                  in relation to commercial activities as well?
     renewable energy sources at minimum prices and
     requires grid operators to meet the costs entailed for
     no consideration?                                               4. Over what period should any calculation be made for
                                                                          determining whether a university is a contracting
                                                                          authority' in respect of any particular procurement,
                                                                          and how are foreseeable or future changes to be taken
                                                                          into account?
                                                                     (1) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, relating to the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                  coordination of procedures for the award of public service
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division,                     contracts (OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1).
Divisional Court, by order of that Court of 21 July 1998,            (2) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993, concerning the
in the case of The Queen and H. M. Treasury, ex parte:                   coordination of procedures for the award of public works
                The University of Cambridge                              contracts (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54).
                                                                     (3) Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating
                      (Case C-380/98)                                    procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ L 199,
                                                                         9.8.1993, p. 1).
                       (98/C 397/34)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division,
Divisional Court, of 21 July 1998, which was received at             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
the Court Registry on 26 October 1998, for a preliminary             (England and Wales), by order of that Court of 31 July
ruling in the case of The Queen and H. M. Treasury, ex               1998, in the case of Ingmar GB Limited against Eaton
parte: The University of Cambridge, on the following                                     Leonard Technologies Inc
questions:
                                                                                (Case C-381/98)
1. Where Article 1 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1),                                        (98/C 397/35)
    Council Directive 93/37/EEC (2) and Council Directive
    93/36/EEC (3) (the Directives') refers to any body
    financed, for the most part, by the state, or regional          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    or local authorities, or other bodies governed by                European Communities by an order of the Court of
    public law' what monies are to be included in the                Appeal (England and Wales), of 31 July 1998, which was
    expression financed . . . by (Zone or more contracting          received at the Court Registry on 26 October 1998, for a
    authorities)'? In particular, in relation to payments to         preliminary ruling in the case of Ingmar GB Limited
    an entity such as the University of Cambridge, does              against Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc, on the following
    the expression include:                                          questions:


title: Case C-315/09: Order of the President of the Court of 25 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/27

         Order of the President of the Court of 25 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-315/09) (1)

   2010/C 179/44

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


C 158/20               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        5.7.2003
Action brought on 19 May 2003 by the Commission of                               Removal from the register of Case C-339/01 ( 1)
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                (2003/C 158/33)
                         (Case C-218/03)
                         (2003/C 158/32)
                                                                         By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-339/01 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before               Vorarlberg): Kurt Beck.
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 May
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Patakia, Legal Adviser, and N. Yerrell, of the         (1 ) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.
Legal Service.
The Commission claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 97/80/EC ( 1) of 15 December 1997 on                     Removal from the register of Case C-343/01 ( 1)
      the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on
      sex, or in any event by failing to communicate such
      provisions, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its                                  (2003/C 158/34)
      obligations under that directive;
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-343/01 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Vorarlberg): Christian Kröll.
Under the third paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty                   (1 ) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.
establishing the European Community, a directive is to be
binding, as to the result to be achieved, on each Member State
to which it is addressed.
Under the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty, Member
States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out
of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions                 Removal from the register of Case C-357/01 ( 1)
of the Community.
                                                                                (2003/C 158/35)
The Hellenic Republic has not contested the fact that it must
take measures to comply with the above-mentioned directive.
                                                                         By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
The Commission has ascertained that the Hellenic Republic                from the register of Case C-357/01 (Reference for a preliminary
has not as yet taken appropriate measures to incorporate the             ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land
directive in question fully into the Greek legal system.                 Vorarlberg): Manfred Laaber.
( 1) OJ L 14, 20.1.1998, p. 6.                                           (1 ) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.


title: Case C-610/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2012 — Johannes Peter v Bundeseisenbahnvermögen

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2012 — Johannes Peter v Bundeseisenbahnvermögen
   (Case C-610/12)
   2013/C 101/17
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Giessen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Johannes Peter

      Defendant: Bundeseisenbahnvermögen

      Question referred

   In a case of unequal treatment that has already been found to exist in the past, between married civil servants and those living in registered life partnerships, is it in accordance with Directive 2000/78/EC (1) to grant, pursuant to the applicable constitutional principles in the Federal Republic of Germany, a retrospective claim for equal treatment under the law on remuneration only with effect from the beginning of the financial year in which the civil servant first made the claim to his employer?

      (1)  Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).


title: Joined Cases T-200/07 to T-202/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (222, 333 and 555) (Community trade mark — Applications for Community word marks 222, 333 and 555 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (222, 333 and 555)
   (Joined Cases T-200/07 to T-202/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Applications for Community word marks 222, 333 and 555 - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 11/43
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and K. Zajfert, Agents)

      Re:

   Three actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2007 (Cases R 1276/2006-4, R 1277/2006-4 and R 1278/2006-4), concerning the applications for registration of the word marks 222, 333 and 555 as Community trade marks.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.