title: Case T-103/08: Action brought on 20 February 2008 — Polimeri Europa and Eni v Commission

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/45

         Action brought on 20 February 2008 — Polimeri Europa and Eni v Commission
   (Case T-103/08)
   (2008/C 92/88)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicants: Polimeri Europa SpA (Brindisi, Italy), Eni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, G.M. Roberti, F. Moretti, I. Perego, F. Cannizzaro, V. Ruotolo, V. Larocca and D. Durante, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Decision, in whole or in part, in particular so far as it concerns the applicants, with all the consequential implications for the level of the fine;

               —

               in the alternative, annul or reduce the fine;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs and associated expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 in Case CONP/F/38629 — Chloroprene rubber (‘CRr’) — (‘the Decision’), the Commission found Polimeri Europa and Eni jointly and severally liable, together with other undertakings, for breach of Article 81 EC, by having (i) agreed to share and fix markets, market shares and sales, (ii) fixed and increased prices for Chloroprene rubber, as well as set minimum prices, (iii) shared customers and (iv) exchanged restricted commercial information.
   In support of their action challenging that decision, Polimeri Europa and Eni allege that the Decision is vitiated by the following substantive defects:

               —

               Breach of Article 81 EC and failure to state reasons for the wrongful imputation to Eni of liability for the acts of a subsidiary company. It is submitted in this regard that the liability of the parent company cannot be established solely on the basis of its ownership of 100 % of the share capital and that the defendant failed correctly to assess the evidence which demonstrated the de facto independence of the subsidiaries vis-à-vis their parent company.

               —

               Inconsistency with the letter closing the procedure against the undertaking responsible, until 1 January 2002, for the CR business, Syndial S.p.A. (‘Syndial’), and infringement of the rights of the defence.

               —

               Breach of Article 81 EC and lack of an adequate statement of reasons by virtue of the erroneous attribution to Polimeri Europa of liability for facts relating to a period during which another company (and not Polimeri Europa) was managing the CR business.

               —

               Insufficiency and inconsistency in the statement of reasons, lack of a proper preliminary investigation and breach of Article 81 EC in regard to the appraisal of the facts and evidence.

               —

               Insufficiency and inconsistency in the statement of reasons in the Decision, lack of a proper preliminary investigation and breach of Article 81 EC as regards the evaluation of the breach as a single and continuous infringement.

               —

               Erroneous calculation of the duration of the infringement in the light of the evidence available.

         The applicants then allege that the fine imposed on them is unlawful as being contrary to Article 81 EC and Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, as well as being at variance with the Guidelines for the calculation of fines.
   It is argued in that regard that there was both an infringement of the principle of proportionality by the increases imposed for repeat offending and purposes of deterrence and an insufficient statement of reasons for refusing to give credit for the mitigating circumstances, in relation to the passive or minor role played in the infringement, to the limited participation in the unlawful conduct, to the cessation of such participation and to the failure to implement the agreements. Polimeri Europa and Eni also complain of the failure to take account of the cooperation provided by Syndial and Polimeri Europa for the purpose of reducing the fine in accordance with the abovementioned Guidelines.
   The applicants plead, finally, a breach of Article 81 EC and of the Commission Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases by the Commission's erroneous assessment of the value of the evidence provided by Syndial and Polimeri Europa and its refusal to grant a reduction in the fine in accordance with that Notice.


title: Case T-611/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Australian Gold v OHIM — Effect Management & Holding (HOT) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark HOT — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of descriptiveness — Distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Cross-claim before the Board of Appeal — Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 — Cross-claim before the General Court — Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of 2 May 1991)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/50

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Australian Gold v OHIM — Effect Management & Holding (HOT)
   (Case T-611/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark HOT - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of descriptiveness - Distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Cross-claim before the Board of Appeal - Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 - Cross-claim before the General Court - Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of 2 May 1991))
   (2015/C 302/64)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Australian Gold LLC (Indianapolis, Indiana, United States) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch and S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Effect Management & Holding GmbH (Vöcklabruck, Austria) (represented by: H. Pernez, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2013 (Case R 1881/2012-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Australian Gold LLC and Effect Management & Holding GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 10 September 2013 (Case R 1881/2012-4) in so far as it failed to adjudicate on the application of Australian Gold LLC concerning ‘cleaning, polishing, degreasing and abrasive preparations’ in Class 3 and ‘sanitary preparations for medical purposes’ in Class 5, and in so far as it annulled and altered the decision of the Cancellation Division for ‘perfumes, essential oils, cosmetics, including shampoos, shower gels, body lotions, face creams’ in Class 3;

               2.

               Dismisses the action brought by Effect Management & Holding GmbH before the Board of Appeal in respect of ‘perfumes, essential oils, cosmetics, including shampoos, shower gels, body lotions, face creams’;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Rejects the request for alteration submitted by Effect Management & Holding;

               5.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case T -330/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of  8 February 2006  — Aqua-Terra Bioprodukt v OHIM

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/46

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 February 2006 — Aqua-Terra Bioprodukt v OHIM
   (Case T -330/05) (1)

   (2006/C 86/85)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.


title: Case T-136/04: Action brought on 8 April 2004 by Domäne Vorderriss, Rasso Freiherr von Cramer-Klett and Rechtlerverband Pfronten against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/17

         Action brought on 8 April 2004 by Domäne Vorderriss, Rasso Freiherr von Cramer-Klett and Rechtlerverband Pfronten against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-136/04)
   (2004/C 190/28)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 April 2004 by Domäne Vorderriss, of Lenggries (Germany), Rasso Freiherr von Cramer-Klett, residing in Aschau i. Chiemgau (Germany), and Rechtlerverband Pfronten, of Pfronten (Germany), represented by T. Schönfeld, lawyer.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 22 December 2003 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region; (1)

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are the owners of tracts of forest which are managed by forestry businesses operated by the respective applicants and which now, under the contested decision, have been named as sites of Community importance (SCI) for the Alpine biogeographical region.
   The applicants submit that the contested decision infringes their fundamental rights guaranteed by the general principles of the Community legal order. That infringement of fundamental rights is formally unlawful because upon adoption of the Commission Decision (and upon implementation of Directive 92/43/EEC) (2) no form of right of participation is bestowed upon the property owners concerned.
   The applicants further submit that the contested decision also materially infringes the applicants' property rights because no consideration was given to the private property rights of the applicants (and the other persons affected) at the time of designation of the SCIs and there was therefore no balancing of the importance of the intended designation of SCIs against that of the applicants' private rights. Furthermore, the contested decision is contrary to the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC itself because the question of the compensation to be paid remains entirely open and unresolved.
   The applicants also submit that the contested decision is disproportionate since it is of itself not suitable to create a coherent European ecological network, and a ‘list of individual units’ for only one biogeographical region is thus incapable of achieving the directive's objective of providing protection. The contested decision is inappropriate also because the required Community-wide coordination was not achieved.

      (1)  OJ L 14, 21.1.2004, p. 21.

      (2)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7).


title: Case T-26/12: Action brought on 20 January 2012 — PT Musim Mas v Council

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/22

         Action brought on 20 January 2012 — PT Musim Mas v Council
   (Case T-26/12)
   2012/C 80/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) (Medan, Indonesia) (represented by: D. Luff, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Articles 1 and 2 of Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 1138/2011 of 8 November 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia (OJ L 293, 11.11.2011, p. 1) (hereafter referred to as ‘the contested regulation’), in so far as it applies to the applicant;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the General Court has jurisdiction to review Articles 1 and 2 of the contested regulation and their conformity with the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (hereafter referred to as ‘the basic Regulation’) and the general principles of European law.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Council violated Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation in that:

                                       (a)

                                       it committed a manifest error in the assessment of facts and a misuse of powers by denying the existence of a ‘single economic entity’ between the applicant and its related sales subsidiary in Singapore. During its investigation, the Commission deliberately ignored the facts put forward by the applicant concerning related companies;

                                       (b)

                                       the Council did not provide sufficient evidence that the conditions of Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation are met. It also committed a misuse of powers and a manifest error of assessment in the application of art 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation by relying on incorrect or misinterpreted facts in order to establish that the conditions of the application of article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation were met. The Council ignored the facts that the applicant provided to the Commission, which the Commission verified, and which it did not rebut during any of the stages of the investigation procedure.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Council violated first paragraph of Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, since:

                                       (a)

                                       it did not carry out a fair comparison between the export price and the normal value. It did not sufficiently demonstrate the differences in factors affecting prices and price comparability. By contrast with existing case law, it did not establish asymmetry between the normal value and the export price, in the absence of adjustment for commissions paid. The Council ignored the information and evidence provided in the applicant’s Questionnaire Response and during its verification visits, which established that ICOF S also handles domestic sales. It failed to sufficiently indicate the reasons why it did not take that information and evidence into account. In doing so, the Council committed a manifest error in the assessment of facts and a misuse of powers. It did not sufficiently motivate the need for an adjustment and the latter is discriminatory towards the applicant,

                                       (b)

                                       the Council did not avoid duplication in the deduction of profits from the export price. The Council deducted a first hypothetical margin of 5 % for ICOF E’s profits, in application of Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation and a second hypothetical margin of 5 % for ICOF S’ profits, thereby deducting an unreasonable total hypothetical margin of 10 % for an intra-group sales operation. This is obviously contrary to the facts and the practice for this type of business operations. The Commission, as investigative authority, should have known this. The Council therefore committed a manifest error in the assessment of facts regarding the intra-group profits and it made a wrong, discriminatory and unreasonable application of Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Council in its assessment of the applicant’s situation violated the principle of sound administration. It ignored information, evidence and arguments provided to the Commission during the investigation. Instead, the Council relied on formal invoices, commissions paid and contracts taken out of their context in order to artificially inflate the applicant’s dumping margin. The Commission and Council should have exercised better diligence and a more rigorous analysis in reaching their conclusions.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the contested regulation was adopted in violation of the principles of equality and non-discrimination. By applying an adjustment to the applicant’s export price, the Council created an asymmetry between the export price and the normal value for the sole reason of the applicant’s corporate and tax structure. Furthermore, the applicant suffered from a double deduction of a hypothetical profit margin by reason of that structure. Both situations are discriminatory against the applicant in relation to the other investigated companies, which sustain similar costs that have not been subject to adjustments.

      (1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51


title: Case C-33/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands), lodged on 26 January 2009 — Oracle Nederland BV v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst Utrecht-Gooi/kantoor Utrecht

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands), lodged on 26 January 2009 — Oracle Nederland BV v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst Utrecht-Gooi/kantoor Utrecht
   (Case C-33/09)
   2009/C 90/14
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Oracle Nederland BV

      Respondent: Inspecteur der Belastingdienst Utrecht-Gooi/kantoor Utrecht

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 11(4) of the Second Directive (1) and Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive (2) to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State wishing to make use of the possibility offered by those articles of (retaining) the exclusion of deduction in respect of categories of expenditure described as:

                           —

                           ‘the provision of food and drink to the staff of the trader’;

                           —

                           ‘giving business gifts or other gifts to persons in relation to whom, if they had been charged or were to be charged the relevant turnover tax, such tax would be entirely or mainly non-deductible’;

                           —

                           ‘providing the staff of the trader with accommodation’;

                           —

                           ‘providing the staff of the trader with opportunities for recreation’

                     has satisfied the condition requiring the designation of a category of adequately defined goods and services?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative for one of the categories listed, do Article 6(2) and Article 17(2) and (6) of the Sixth Directive leave room for a national statutory provision, such as that which is the subject of the dispute, which was enacted before the Sixth Directive entered into force and on the basis of which a taxable person may not deduct in full the turnover tax paid on the acquisition of certain goods or services because a fee was charged in respect thereof which incurred turnover tax, but may only deduct an amount equivalent to the amount of tax owed in respect of the transaction concerned?

               3.

               If, in respect of ‘the provision of food and drink’, the condition is satisfied which requires the designation of a category of adequately defined goods and services, does Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive preclude an amendment to an existing exclusion of the deduction, from which amendment it seems likely that in principle the scope of the exclusion will be restricted but where it cannot be ruled out that in an individual case in a particular year the scope of the restriction of the deduction might be extended, in particular through the fixed-rate nature of the amended provision?

      (1)  Second Council Directive 67/228/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes — Structure and procedures for application of the common system of value added tax (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 16).

      (2)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case F-113/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015 — DI v EASO (Civil Service — EASO staff — Contractual staff — Probationary period — Dismissed as manifestly unsuitable — Action for annulment — Lack of concordance between the application and the claim — Manifest inadmissibility — Action for damages)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/66

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015 — DI v EASO
   (Case F-113/13)
   ((Civil Service - EASO staff - Contractual staff - Probationary period - Dismissed as manifestly unsuitable - Action for annulment - Lack of concordance between the application and the claim - Manifest inadmissibility - Action for damages))
   (2015/C 389/75)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: DI (represented by: I. Vlaic, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Asylum Support Office (EASO) (represented by: L. Cerdán Ortiz-Quintana, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) to terminate the applicant’s employment contract after the probationary period, which was extended by three months.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               DI shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Asylum Support Office.


title: Case T-687/13: Action brought on 13 December 2013 — Unibail Management v OHIM (Representation of two lines and four stars)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/42

         Action brought on 13 December 2013 — Unibail Management v OHIM (Representation of two lines and four stars)
   (Case T-687/13)
   2014/C 52/81
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Unibail Management (Paris, France) (represented by: L. Bénard, A. Rudoni, O. Klimis, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in part the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 September 2013 in Case R 299/2013-2 in so far as the registration of Community mark No 10 939 981 for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 was refused;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark composed of four five-pointed stars, preceded and followed by a horizontal line for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 10 939 981

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), read in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 75, of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


title: Case T-345/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/61

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-345/04) (1)

   (2008/C 301/102)

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2003 in Case T-196/01: Aristotelio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Discontinuation of financial aid — Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Error of assessment — Principle of proportionality — Reasonable period — Statement of reasons)

text:
C 304/24                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          13.12.2003
3.    Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.                           2.    Orders each party to bear its own costs including those relation
                                                                                to the interim proceedings.
(1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 30 September 2003                                                         of 30 September 2003
in Case T-196/01: Aristotelio Panepistimio Thessalonikis                     in Case T-203/01: Manufacture française des pneumati-
      v Commission of the European Communities (1)                           ques Michelin v Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties (1)
(EAGGF — Discontinuation of financial aid — Article 24
of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Error of assessment                         (Article 82 EC — System of discounts — Abuse of dominant
— Principle of proportionality — Reasonable period —                                                       position)
                        Statement of reasons)
                                                                                (2003/C 304/43)
                          (2003/C 304/42)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                      (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                             In Case T-203/01: Manufacture française des pneumatiques
In Case T-196/01: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis,                   Michelin, established in Clermont-Ferrand (France), represent-
established in Thessaloniki (Greece) represented by D. Niko-                 ed by J.-F. Bellis, M. Wellinger, D. Waelbroeck and M. Johnsson,
poulos, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v                 lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Con-                      Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
dou-Durande) — application for annulment of Commission                       É. Gippini Fournier and A. Barav, subsequently R. Wainwright
Decision C (2001) 1284 of 8 June 2001, discontinuing aid to                  and A. Barav), supported by Bandag Inc., established in
the laboratory for forest genetics and the improvement of                    Muscatine, Iowa (United States of America), represented by
ligneous plant species of Aristotelio Panepistimio Thessaloniki              H. Calvet and R. Saint-Esteben, lawyers, with an address for
(University of Thessaloniki) granted by Commission Decision                  service in Luxembourg - application for annulment of the
C (96) 2542 of 25 September 1996 on the grant of EAGGF                       Commission Decision of 20 June 2001 (Case COMP/E-2/
Guidance Section assistance in accordance with Council Regu-                 36.041/PO — Michelin) relating to a proceeding pursuant to
lation (EEC) No 4256/88 in the context of project                            Article 82 EC (OJ 2002, L 143, p. 1) — the Court of First
No 93.EL.06.023, ‘Pilot project on the acceleration of regener-              Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,
ation of woodland affected by the fires in Greece’, — the Court              J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for
of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts,                  the Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 September 2003, in
President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; U. Natsinas, Adminis-             which it:
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 September
2003, in which it:
                                                                             1.    Dismisses the application.
1.    Annuls Commission Decision C (2001) 1284 of the 8 June                 2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay those of the
      2001 discontinuing assistance to the laboratory for forestry                 Commission.
      genetics and improvement of ligneous plant species of Aristotelio
      Panepistimio Thessaloniki (Aristoteleio University of Thessa-          3.    Orders Bandag Inc. to bear its own costs.
      loniki) granted by Decision C (96) 2542 of the Commission of
      25 September 1996 on the grant of EAGGF Guidance
      section assistance in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC)         (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
      No 4256/88 in the context of Project No 93.EL.06.023 ‘Pilot
      project on the acceleration of regeneration of woodland affected
      by the fires in Greece’;


title: Case T-84/17: Action brought on 8 February 2017 — Consorzio IB Innovation v Commission

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/24

         Action brought on 8 February 2017 — Consorzio IB Innovation v Commission
   (Case T-84/17)
   (2017/C 095/32)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Consorzio IB Innovation (Bentivoglio, Italy) (represented by: A. Masutti and P. Manzini, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision, in part or in full, on the basis of the pleas in law relied on;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action has been brought against the European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation’s decision of 30 November 2016 (ref: Ares 2016-6711369), whereby the Commission agreed with Lubbock Fine’s Final Report No 14-BA259-027 of 21 November 2016 and consequently found that Consorzio IB Innovation (‘the Consorzio’ or ‘IBI’) was under an obligation to repay EUR 294 925,43 in relation to Contract No 261679-CONTAIN and EUR 155 482,91 in relation to Contract No 288383-ICARGO, and to verify whether there were systemic errors in relation to a series of subsequent contracts.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an incorrect and contradictory interpretation of the terms ‘beneficiary’ and ‘third parties’, in breach of the General Agreement (GA) and the General Conditions contained in Annex II to the GA.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that, bearing in mind the characteristics of the Consorzio, the collective entity that is to be regarded as the beneficiary of the GA consists of all the members of the consortium. Therefore, the consortium members are not third parties in relation to the beneficiary, but part of the beneficiary itself. As such, staff made available by those members to the Consorzio for the tasks referred to in the GA should be regarded as staff of the beneficiary, and must not be mentioned in Annex I, as claimed in the contested decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision has no legal basis, contains a contradictory statement of reasons and infringes the principle of sound administration.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that the contested decision must necessarily be based on an express legal rule and not, as in the present case, on a Guide on Financial Issues, issued by the services of the Commission and having no legal force. That decision also disregards the principle of sound administration, which prevents the Commission from adopting measures which are binding on their addressees and are based on an incomplete and contradictory report by an auditor from outside the Commission.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation and misapplication of Article II.15.2.c of Annex II to the CONTAIN and ICARGO GAs.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that the IBI consultants the reimbursement of whose indirect costs was refused were professionals not engaged by any other body, that is, they were self-employed. Therefore, they are not in either of the situations in respect of which paragraph 2.c of the provision under consideration precludes the reimbursement of costs. If IBI consultants who telework are not in either of the two exceptional situations, they are necessarily subject to the general rule, that is, their indirect costs are subject to the 60 % flat rate rule.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the language rules applicable within the European Union.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that both the auditor’s report and the defendant’s decision adopting that report are drafted in English, that is, in a language other than IBI’s national language. Therefore, Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community has been infringed.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration on the basis of a lack of diligence and care in the examination of the case.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that in a situation where the Commission delegates to an external auditor the task of analysing the accounting accuracy of projects, the duty of due diligence passes to that auditor. In addition, once the auditor’s report has been received, the principle of sound administration requires the Commission to take particular care in analysing it and endows the Commission with the power to intervene, where appropriate, by altering its content. The Commission has breached that duty of due diligence.


title: Case T-191/07: Action brought on 31 May 2007 — Anheuser-Busch v OHIM — Budějovický Budvar (BUDWEISER)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/34

         Action brought on 31 May 2007 — Anheuser-Busch v OHIM — Budějovický Budvar (BUDWEISER)
   (Case T-191/07)
   (2007/C 183/67)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (St. Louis, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Budějoviský Budvar, národní podnik
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 March 2007 in Case R 299/2006-2;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 March 2007 in Case R 299/2006-2 in so far as it concerns ‘non-alcoholic drinks’;

               —

               Order the defendant and, in the event that it intervenes, the other party to the proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BUDWEISER’ for goods and services in Class 32 (application No 24 646).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Budějoviský Budvar, národní podnik.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The international word mark ‘BUDWEISER’ for goods in Class 32, the international figurative mark ‘Budweiser Budvar’ for goods in Classes 31 and 32 and the international figurative mark ‘Budweiser Budvar’ for goods in Class 32.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for registration rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of the right to be heard, incorrect application of Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) and infringement of Article 43(2) of that regulation; in the alternative, infringement of Article 73 of that regulation on account of an inadequate statement of reasons.

      (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-170/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2016 — Benelli Q.J. v OHIM — Demharter (MOTOBI) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark MOTOBI — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2016 — Benelli Q.J. v OHIM — Demharter (MOTOBI)
   (Case T-170/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark MOTOBI - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 098/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Benelli Q.J. Srl (Pesaro, Italy) (represented by: P. Lukácsi and B. Bozóki, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially F. Mattina and subsequently P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Demharter GmbH (Dillingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Kohn, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2013 (Case R 2080/2011-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Demharter GmbH and Benelli Q.J. Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Benelli Q.J. Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case F-59/08: Action brought on 30 June 2008 — Klug v European Medicines Agency

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/62

         Action brought on 30 June 2008 — Klug v European Medicines Agency
   (Case F-59/08)
   (2008/C 223/119)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Bettina Klug (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: S. Zickgraf, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the performance evaluation report drawn up by the defendant in respect of the applicant for the period from 31 December 2004 to 31 December 2006, and order for payment by the defendant of compensation for material and non-material damage.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the performance evaluation report drawn up by the defendant in respect of the applicant for the period from 31 December 2004 to 31 December 2006 void;

               —

               declare the non-renewal of the applicant's employment contract unlawful;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensation for material damage in the sum of EUR 200 000;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensation for non-material damage in the sum of EUR 35 000.


title: Case C-285/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium)) — Aboubacar Diakité v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Person eligible for subsidiary protection — Article 15(c) — Serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflict — ‘Internal armed conflict’ — Interpretation independent of international humanitarian law — Criteria for assessment)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium)) — Aboubacar Diakité v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides
   (Case C-285/12) (1)

   (Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Person eligible for subsidiary protection - Article 15(c) - Serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflict - ‘Internal armed conflict’ - Interpretation independent of international humanitarian law - Criteria for assessment)
   2014/C 93/09
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Aboubacar Diakité

      Respondent: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 15(c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12) — Refusal to grant refugee status or subsidiary protection — Person eligible for subsidiary protection — ‘Internal armed conflict’ — Whether a specific interpretation independent of international humanitarian law is required, or whether an interpretation consistent with that provided under international humanitarian law is permissible — Criteria for assessment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   On a proper construction of Article 15(c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, it must be acknowledged that an internal armed conflict exists, for the purposes of applying that provision, if a State’s armed forces confront one or more armed groups or if two or more armed groups confront each other. It is not necessary for that conflict to be categorised as ‘armed conflict not of an international character’ under international humanitarian law; nor is it necessary to carry out, in addition to an appraisal of the level of violence present in the territory concerned, a separate assessment of the intensity of the armed confrontations, the level of organisation of the armed forces involved or the duration of the conflict.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012


title: Case C-221/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Etablissements Fr. Colruyt NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2011/64/EU — Article 15(1) — Free determination, by the manufacturers and importers, of the maximum retail selling prices of manufactured tobacco products — National regulation prohibiting the sale of such products by retailers at prices lower than those indicated on the revenue stamp — Free movement of goods — Article 34 TFEU — Selling arrangements — Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/19

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Etablissements Fr. Colruyt NV
   (Case C-221/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/64/EU - Article 15(1) - Free determination, by the manufacturers and importers, of the maximum retail selling prices of manufactured tobacco products - National regulation prohibiting the sale of such products by retailers at prices lower than those indicated on the revenue stamp - Free movement of goods - Article 34 TFEU - Selling arrangements - Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU))
   (2016/C 419/23)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium

      Party in the main proceedings

   Etablissements Fr. Colruyt NV

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 15(1) of Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits retailers from selling tobacco products at a unit price lower than the price indicated by the manufacturer or importer on the revenue stamp affixed to those products, in so far as that price has been freely determined by the manufacturer or importer.

               2.

               Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits retailers from selling tobacco products at a unit price lower than the price indicated by the manufacturer or importer on the revenue stamp affixed to those products, in so far as that price has been freely determined by the importer.

               3.

               Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits retailers from selling tobacco products at a unit price lower than the price indicated by the manufacturer or importer on the revenue stamp affixed to those products.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.


title: Joined Cases F-27/06 and F-75/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 24 May 2007 — Lofaro v Commission (Officials — Member of temporary staff — Extension of probationary period — Dismissal at the end of the probationary period — Acts adversely affecting the applicant — Period for lodging a complaint — Inadmissibility)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/44

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 24 May 2007 — Lofaro v Commission
   (Joined Cases F-27/06 and F-75/06) (1)

   (Officials - Member of temporary staff - Extension of probationary period - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Acts adversely affecting the applicant - Period for lodging a complaint - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 155/81)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Alessandro Lofaro (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-L. Laffineur, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and K. Herrmann, Agents, assisted in Case F-27/06 by F. Longfis, lawyer)
   Re:
   In Case F-27/06:
   First, annulment of the Commission's decisions to extend the applicant's probationary period and to terminate his contract at the end of that period and, second, a claim for damages.
   In Case F-75/06:
   First, annulment of the Commission's decision of 28 September 2005 to dismiss the applicant at the end of his probationary period and the report at the expiry of the probationary period on which that decision was based and, second, a claim for damages.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  F-27/06: OJ C 208, 6.5.2006, p. 35 and F-75/06: OJ C 212, 2.9.2006, p. 48.


C 302/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                21.10.2000
       Removal from the register of Case C-163/98 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-341/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/44)                                                      (2000/C 302/48)
By order of 19 May 2000, the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 13 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-163/98: Commission of the European            the register of Case C-341/99 (reference for a preliminary
Communities v Eyckeler & Malt AG.                                    ruling from Landesgerich Korneuburg): SEIKO Kabushiki Kai-
                                                                     sha v Rashad Wali.
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-460/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-450/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/45)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/49)
By order of 25 May 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             By order of 13 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-460/99: Commission of the European            of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Communities v French Republic.                                       the register of Case C-450/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg): SEIKO Kabushiki
                                                                     Kaisha v Bajrami Sinavere.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-78/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-432/00 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/46)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/50)
By order of 9 June 2000, the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has              By order of 22 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-78/99:               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.            the register of Case C-432/99: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-183/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-452/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/47)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/51)
By order of 13 June 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-183/99 (Reference for a preliminary           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Hugo Boss v Trigavina         the register of Case C-452/99: Commission of the European
in Storitve D.O.O.                                                   Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                           (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.


14.7.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 200/55
            destination that the accompanying health certificate                 Removal from the register of Case C-286/00 (1)
            include the said declaration?
                                                                                (2001/C 200/100)
(1) Council Directive 91/68/EEC of 28 January 1991 on animal
    health conditions governing intra-Commuity trade in ovine and         By order of 2 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
    caprine animals (OJ L 46, 19.2.1991, p. 19).                          of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
(2) Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning           the register of Case C-286/00: Italian Republic v Commission
    veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the         of the European Communities.
    completion of the internal market (OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 13).
(3) Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning
    veterninary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Com-          (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
    munity trade in certain live animals and products with a view to
    the completion of the internal market (OJ L 224; 18.8.1990,
    p. 29).
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-367/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-158/95 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/101)
                         (2001/C 200/98)
                                                                          By order of 2 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 23 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                  the register of Case C-367/00: Commission of the European
the register of Case C-158/95: Federal Republic of Germany v              Communities v French Republic.
Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
(1) OJ C 208 of 12.8.1995.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-428/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case         C-102/01 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/102)
                         (2001/C 200/99)
By order of 27 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice           By order of 4 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                  of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-102/01: Italian Republic v Commission              the register of Case C-428/00: (reference for a preliminary
of the European Communities.                                              ruling from Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen): Merz +
                                                                          Co. GmbH & Co. v AOK-Bundesverband and Others.
(1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                                (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  27 October 2005  in Case C-166/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 79/409/EEC — Protection of wild birds and their habitats — Special protection areas — Messolongi Lagoon)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 27 October 2005
   in Case C-166/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 79/409/EEC - Protection of wild birds and their habitats - Special protection areas - Messolongi Lagoon)
   (2005/C 330/09)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-166/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Patakia and M. van Beek) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: E. Skandalou) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 2 April 2004 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, P. Kūris (Rapporteur) and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 October 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary for establishing and implementing a cohesive, specific and comprehensive legal regime capable of ensuring sustainable management and effective protection of the special protection area of the Messalongi Lagoon, having regard to the conservation objectives laid down by Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 156 of 12.06.2004


title: Case C-516/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 September 2013 — Dimensione Direct Sales srl, Michele Labianca v Knoll International SpA

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 September 2013 — Dimensione Direct Sales srl, Michele Labianca v Knoll International SpA
   (Case C-516/13)
   2013/C 367/42
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Dimensione Direct Sales srl, Michele Labianca

      Defendant: Knoll International SpA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the distribution right under Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) include the right to offer the original or copies of the work to the public for sale?
               If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:

               2.

               Does the right to offer the original or copies of the work to the public for sale include not only contractual offers, but also advertising measures?

               3.

               Is the distribution right infringed even if no purchase of the original or copies of the work takes place on the basis of the offer?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ L 167, p. 10).


title: Cases T-279/99 to T-284/99: Actions brought on 27 October 1999 by De Haan Minerale Oliën B.V. and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
19.2.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 47/31
Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña Uriarte Valiente, of                    of an ‘undertaking’. Each service station or, as the case may be,
the Barcelona and Madrid Bars respectively, of Cuatrecasas                 each legal entity operating a service station should be regarded
Abogados, 60 Av. de Cortenbergh, Brussels.                                 as an undertaking, with the result that the aid granted to each
                                                                           applicant therefor or, as the case may be, to each service
                                                                           station in the present case — which does not exceed the
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:              amount specified in the de minimis rule — falls outside the
                                                                           scope of Article 87(1) EC. Consequently, that provision cannot
— Annul the Commission decision of 14 July 1999 in so far                  be applicable, since the aid in question serves in any event to
     as it classifies as State aid within the meaning of Article 87        maintain competition.
     EC the tax credit provided for in Norma Foral de Bizkaia
     (Biscay Regional Law) No 7/1996 of 26 December 1996
     and the subsequent extension thereof;
                                                                           (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
— Order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
The applicant’s contentions are the same as those put forward
in Case T-269/99.
                                                                           Actions brought on 27 October 1999 by De Haan
                                                                           Minerale Oliën B.V. and Others against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
                                                                                (Cases T-279/99 to T-284/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 47/55)
Actions brought on 27 October 1999 by Autoservice J.
van Deursen B.V. and Others against the Commission of
                    the European Communities
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                   (Cases T-273/99 to T-278/99)
                                                                           Actions against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           were brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                            (2000/C 47/54)                                 Communities on 27 October 1999 by De Haan Minerale Oliën
                                                                           B.V., of Alblasserdam (Netherlands), and others, represented
                                                                           by M.J.C. Deriks, of the Rotterdam Bar.
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                           The applicants claim that the Court should:
Actions against the Commission of the European Communities
were brought before the Court of First Instance of the European            (a) annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
Communities on 27 October 1999 by Autoservice J. van                            of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
Deursen B.V., of Budel-Schoot (Netherlands), and others,                        Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
represented by M.J.C. Deriks, of the Rotterdam Bar.                             Germany;
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                (b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
(a) annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
     of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
     Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
     Germany;
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Cases
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 T-273/99 to T-278/99.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
This case corresponds to Case T-210/99. The applicants claim
inter alia that the Commission has misinterpreted the concept


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 2 May 1995 in Joined Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94 NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd. v. Council of the European Union (Anti-dumping duty on ball-bearings - Review - Regulation modifying a definitive anti-dumping duty - Determination of the injury)

text:
24. 6 . 95          [ EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 159/23
4 , ordered the interveners to bear their own costs.                       which are to be paid by the applicant. Each of the
                                                                           interveners shall pay its own costs.
(!) OJ No C 47, 21 . 2 . 1992 .
(2 ) OJ No L 254, 11 . 9 . 1991 , p. 14.                             ( i ) OJ No C 29, 2 . 2 . 1993 and OJ No C 62, 4 . 3 . 1993 .
                                                                     ( 2 ) OJ No L 286 , 1 . 10 . 1992 , p . 2 .
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                         of 2 May 1995                                         OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in Joined Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94 NTN Corporation                                         of 10 March 1995
and Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd. v. Council of the European
                                                                     in Case T-395/94 R: Atlantic Container Line AB and Others
                             Union O
                                                                             v. Commission of the European Communities
(Anti-dumping duty on ball-bearings — Review —
Regulation modifying a definitive anti-dumping duty —                                             95/C 159/49 )
                 Determination of the injury)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                          ( 95/C 159/48 )
                                                                     In Case T-395/94 R, Atlantic Container Line AB,
               (Language of the case: English)                       established in Gothenburg, Sweden, Cho Yang Shipping
                                                                     Company Ltd, established in Seoul, DSR-Senator Lines
In Joined Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94, NTN                           GmbH, established in Bremen, Germany, Hapag Lloyd AG,
Corporation, whose registered office is in Osaka (Japan ),           established in Hamburg, Germany, MSC Mediterranean
represented by Jürgen Schwarze and Malte Sprenger,                   Shipping Company SA, established in Geneva, Switzerland,
Rechtsanwalt, Dusseldorf, with an address for service in             A. P. Møller-Mærsk Line, established in Copenhagen,
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Claude Penning, 78                     Nedlloyd Lijnen BV, established in Rotterdam, the
Grand-Rue, and Koyo Seiko Co . Ltd, whose registered                 Netherlands, Neptune Orient Lines Ltd (NOL), established
office is in Osaka, represented by Jacques Buhart of the Paris       in Singapore, Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK Line ),
Bar and Charles Kaplan, Barrister, with an address for               established in Tokyo, Orient Overseas Container Line (UK)
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Arendt               Ltd, established in Levington, United Kingdom, P&O
and Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Council of                 Containers Ltd, established in London, Polish Ocean Lines,
the European Union ( Agents: R. Torrent, J. Monteiro, H. -J.         established in Gdynia, Poland, Sea-Land Service Inc .,
Rabe and G. Berrisch ), supported by the Federation of               established in Jersey City, New Jersey, United States of
European        Bearing       Manufacturers '     Associations,      America, Tecomar SA de CV, established in Mexico DF, and
represented by Dietrich Ehle and Volker Schiller,                    Transportación Maritima Mexicana SA, established in
Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an address for service in               Mexico DF, represented by John Pheasant, Nicholas
Luxembourg in Case T-163/94 at the Chambers of Messrs                Bromfield and Suyong Kim, Solicitors, with an address for
Arendt and Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, and in                 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch &
Case T-165/94 at the Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 Rue                  Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, supported by the Japanese
Michel Welter, and, in Case T-165/94 , supported also by the         Shipowners' Association, having its head office in Tokyo,
Commission of the European Communities (Agents : E.                  represented by Nicholas J. Forwood QC, of the Bar of
White and C. -M. Happe ) — application for the annulment             England and Wales, and Philip Rutley, Solicitor, with an
of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2849/92 of 28 September             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
1992 modifying the definitive anti-dumping duty on                   Arendt & Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, and the
imports of ball-bearings with a greatest external diameter           European Community Shipowners ' Associations ASBL,
exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan imposed by                      having its head office in Brussels, represented by Denis
Regulation (EEC ) No 1739/85 ( 2 ) — the Court of First              Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
Instance ( Third Chamber, extended composition )                     in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10
composed of: J. Biancarelli, President, R. Schintgen, C. P.          Rue Mathias Hardt v. Commission of the European
Briët, R. Garcfa-Valdecasas and C. W. Bellamy, Judges, H.            Communities (Agents : B. Langeheine and R. Lyal ),
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 May 1995 in               supported by the Freight Transport Association Ltd, having
which it:                                                            its head office in Tunbridge Wells, United Kingdom, the
                                                                     Association des Utilisateurs de Transport de Fret, having its
1 , annuls Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC)                     head office in Paris, and the European Council of Transport
     No 2849/92 of 28 September 1992 modifying the                   Users, having its head office in Brussels, represented by
     definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of                      Mark Clough, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales,
     ball-bearings with a greatest external diameter                 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
     exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan imposed by                 of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue — application for an order
     Regulation (EEC) No 1 739/85, in so far as it imposes an        suspending the operation of Commission Decision
     anti-dumping duty on the applicants;                            94/980/EC of 19 October 1994 relating to a proceeding
                                                                     pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( IV/34.446 —
2 , orders the Council to bear its own costs and those of the        Trans-Atlantic Agreement) ( a ) — the President of the Court
     applicants, with the exception of the costs of the              of First Instance has made an order on 10 March 1995 , the
     applicant in Case T-l 63/94 relating to the intervention,       operative part of which is as follows :


title: Case T-48/16: Action brought on 2 February 2016 — Sigma Orionis v Commission

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/59

         Action brought on 2 February 2016 — Sigma Orionis v Commission
   (Case T-48/16)
   (2016/C 098/75)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Sigma Orionis SA (Valbonne, France) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that the European Commission failed to fulfil its contractual obligations under grant contracts FP7 and H2020 by suspending all payments due to the applicant on the basis of an OLAF investigation report that was drawn up unlawfully;

               —

               Declare that the European Commission failed to fulfil its contractual obligations under grant contracts FP7 and H2020 by terminating the contested grant contracts on the basis of an OLAF investigation report that was drawn up unlawfully;

               —

               In the alternative, order the appointment of an expert whose task will be to determine the amounts indisputably payable to the applicant under the contested grant contracts.

         Consequently, that the defendant be ordered:

               —

               to pay the unlawfully suspended amounts due under grant contract FP7, that is, EUR 607 404,49 together with interest on late payment in accordance with Article II.5.5, calculated from the due date of the amounts payable, at the rate fixed by the European Central bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by 3,5 points,

               —

               to pay the unlawfully suspended amounts due under the H2020 grant contracts, that is, EUR 226 688,68 together with interest on late payment in accordance Article 21.11.1, calculated from the due date of the amounts payable, at the rate fixed by the European Central bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by 3,5 points,

               —

               to compensate the applicant for the additional harm that it has suffered, assessed at this stage in the amount of EUR 1 500 000 subject to increase or reduction in the course of the proceedings,

               —

               to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission cannot rely on an investigation report drawn up on the basis of evidence obtained unlawfully to justify its decision to suspend, in their entirety, the payments due to the applicant. The applicant claims, in that regard, that in so far as the Commission relied on unlawfully obtained evidence, both the suspension of payments and the termination of the grant contracts are unlawful.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, in that the various technical audit reports invariably concluded that the resources were used by the applicant in accordance with the principles of economy, efficiency and sound financial management. It follows from this that the Commission could not claim to have validly found that the applicant had committed irregularities in connection with other grants such as to justify either the termination or suspension of all payments in the contested grant contracts. Moreover, participation in the grant agreements constitutes the only source of funding for the applicant and the absence of new European projects would inevitably lead to bankruptcy.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits of its discretion and which is such as to cause the European Union to incur non-contractual liability. The applicant has suffered damage in connection to its reputation and its order book, which greatly reduces or even eliminates any prospect of participating, in the future, in new European projects. Moreover, participation in the grant agreements constitutes the only source of funding for the applicant and the absence of new European projects would inevitably lead to bankruptcy.


title: Case C-208/14: Order of the President of the Court of 17 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Navarra, Sección Tercera — Spain) — Antonia Valdivia Reche v Banco de Valencia SA

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/24

      Order of the President of the Court of 17 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Navarra, Sección Tercera — Spain) — Antonia Valdivia Reche v Banco de Valencia SA
      (Case C-208/14) (1)

      (2015/C 016/38)
      Language of the case: Spanish
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-352/00: Action brought on 22 September 2000 by Council of the European Union against the Italian Republic

text:
9.12.2000                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 355/9
2.    If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is      Infringement of Article 190                        of  the    EC
      the proper construction of Article 46(2)(b) [of that               Treaty (now Article 253 EC)
      regulation] that ‘the duration of the periods of insurance
      or of residence completed before the materialisation of            Regulation No 1364/00 provides no reason for fixing the
      the risk under the legislation which [the competent                derived intervention price for another five Member States but
      institution of a Member State] administers’ also includes          not for Italy. Neither does Regulation No 1363/00 provide
      those periods of notional contribution corresponding to            any reason for fixing the intervention price. This prevents the
      periods prior to materialisation of the risk which, under          Italian Government from exercising its rights of the defence
      the legislation of the Member State concerned, are to be           and also hinders judicial review of the contested measures.
      taken into account as periods of contribution for the
      purpose of determining the amount of old-age pension?
                                                                         Breach of the principle of equality
                                                                         Article 1 of Regulation No 1364/00 fails to fix the derived
                                                                         intervention price for white sugar in respect of Italy while
                                                                         confirming it for five other Member States.
                                                                         Even though the Italian Government does not know why the
                                                                         Council has refused to fix a derived intervention price for Italy
                                                                         while confirming it for the other Member States, it nevertheless
                                                                         denounces a breach of the principle of equality and complains
Action brought on 22 September 2000 by Council of the                    that it has been treated differently.
         European Union against the Italian Republic
                                                                         (1) OJ L 156, p. 3.
                                                                         (2) L 156, p. 1.
                          (Case C-352/00)
                          (2000/C 355/15)
An action against the Council of the European Union was                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana by order of that
ties on 22 September 2000 by the Italian Republic, represented           court of 18 January 2000 in the case of Antonio Testa
by Umberto Leanza, assisted by Danilo del Gaizo, acting as               and Lido Lazzeri against Commissione Nazionale per le
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 Società e la Borsa (CONSOB) with the intervention ad
Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adélaïde.                                                adjuvandum of Banca Fideuram SpA
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       (Case C-356/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/16)
—     annul Article 1 of Council Regulation No 1364/00 (1) in
      so far as it fails to fix the derived intervention price for       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      white sugar in respect of all the Italian areas for the            European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
      2000/2001 marketing year; in so far as necessary, also             tivo Regionale per la Toscana (Regional Administrative Court,
      annul Article 1(2) of Council Regulation No 1363/00 (2)            Tuscany) of 18 January 2000, received at the Court Registry
      in so far as it fixes the intervention price for Italy;            on 25 September 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                         Antonio Testa and Lido Lazzeri against Commissione Naziona-
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.          le per le Società e la Borsa (CONSOB) with the intervention
                                                                         ad adjuvandum of Banca Fideuram SpA on the following
                                                                         questions:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          1.    Must Point 3 of Section A of the Annex to Council
                                                                               Directive 93/22/EEC (1) of 10 May 1993 (on investment
                                                                               services in the securities field), which contains the defi-
                                                                               nition ‘[m]anaging portfolios of investments in accord-
Infringement of Article 3(4) and (5) of Basic                                  ance with mandates given by investors on a discriminat-
Regulation No 2038/99                                                          ory, client-by-client basis’ be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                               that Community provision is infringed by a national
                                                                               provision which departs from it and which, in this case,
The Council infringed Article 3(4) and (5) of the basic                        does not require that the management of portfolios of
regulation by fixing intervention prices (including the derived                investments should be on ‘a discriminatory, client-by-
intervention prices) in June or July 2000 when it should have                  client basis’ and ‘in accordance with mandates given by
fixed them earlier in August 1999.                                             investors’?


title: Case T-314/99: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Weghorst-Oliko v Commission

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/29

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Weghorst-Oliko v Commission
   (Case T-314/99) (1)

   (2006/C 310/62)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Second Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 4.3.2000.


title: Case T-243/14: Action brought on 17 April 2014 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a face)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/38

         Action brought on 17 April 2014 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a face)
   (Case T-243/14)
   2014/C 282/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Smiley Company SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Freitag, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 January 2014 given in Case R 837/2013-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Tri-dimensional mark representing the shape of a face for goods in classes 29 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 1 68  861

      Decision of the Examiner: Found the mark applied for not eligible for registration pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Case T-317/06: Action brought on 23 November 2006 — Panrico S.L. v OHIM — HDN Development ( Krispy Kreme DOUGHNUTS )

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/69

         Action brought on 23 November 2006 — Panrico S.L. v OHIM — HDN Development (‘Krispy Kreme DOUGHNUTS’)
   (Case T-317/06)
   (2006/C 326/144)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Panrico S.L. (Unipersonal) (Santa Perpètua de Mogola, Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: D. Pellisé Irquiza, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: HDN Development Corporation
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 August 2006 in the appeal in Case R 0194/2005-1 relating to opposition proceedings No B 303 992 which refused Community trade mark application No 1 298 785;

               —

               order the Office and HDN Development Corporation the applicant for Community trade mark No 1 298 785 to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: HDN Development Corporation.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with the words ‘KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUTS’ (Application No 1 298 785) for goods in Classes 25 and 30 and for services in Class 42.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word marks ‘DOGHNUTS’ (No 1 288 926) and ‘DONUT’ (No 399 563) for goods in Class 30 and the figurative mark ‘donuts’ for goods in Class 25 and services in Class 42.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.
   Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) and 5 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark. The applicant submits, in that regard, that the Community trade mark which is the subject of these proceedings has as its main component the word ‘DOUGHNUTS’, which may be confused with the family of opposing marks DONUT-DONUTS-DOGHNUTS applied to the same goods and services, giving rise to a serious risk of confusion on the part of the Spanish public.


title: Case C-212/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) by order of that court of 9 May 2001 in the case of Margarete Unterpertinger v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter

text:
C 212/16               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.7.2001
requirement of unanimity of the Council would radically                  Action brought on 22 May 2001 by the Commission of
change the procedure for concluding such transport agree-                the European Communities against the Federal Republic
ments, which are normally subject to qualified majority voting.                                     of Germany
(1) Council Decision 2001/265/EC concerning the conclusion of the
    Agreement between the European Community and the Republic                                     (Case C-214/01)
    of Bulgaria establishing certain conditions for the carriage of
    goods by road and the promotion of combined transport (OJ
    2001 L 108, p. 4).
    Council Decision 2001/266/EC concerning the conclusion of the
    Agreement between the European Community and the Republic                                     (2001/C 212/28)
    of Hungary establishing certain conditions for the carriage of
    goods by road and the promotion of combined transport (OJ
    2001 L 108, p. 4).
                                                                         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties on 22 May 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, legal adviser,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of G.
                                                                         Berscheid, legal adviser, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
Innsbruck (Austria) by order of that court of 9 May 2001                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
in the case of Margarete Unterpertinger v Pensionsver-
                sicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter                           1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary
                                                                               to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6, 7 and 9 of
                         (Case C-212/01)                                       Council Directive 89/618/Euratom (1) of 27 November
                                                                               1989 on informing the general public about health
                                                                               protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken
                         (2001/C 212/27)                                       in the event of a radiological emergency, the Federal
                                                                               Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         under that directive.
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht Inns-
bruck (District Court) of 9 May 2001 which was received at               2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
the Court Registry on 23 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Margarete Unterpertinger against Pensionsver-
sicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter on the following questions:
1.    Is Article 13A(1)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive
      (77/388/EEC) (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation               Pleas in law and main arguments
      of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
      taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
      basis of assessment, to be interpreted as meaning that the
      exemption from value added tax provided for therein
                                                                         —     Incorrect transposition of Article 6 of the directive: The
      does not apply to turnover from the activity of a doctor
                                                                               requirement under Article 6 to inform the population
      which consists in determining the disability or ability of
                                                                               affected has not been ensured by means of binding legal
      a person applying for a pension?
                                                                               provisions in Germany. Article 6 is, however, of central
2.    Is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European                  importance in order to achieve the objective set out in
      Communities in Case C-384/98 D v W to be interpreted                     Article 1 of improving the health protection of the
      as meaning that medical examinations and expert                          population; for the effectiveness of those provisions of
      opinions based on them for the purpose of establishing                   the directive it is therefore important that the content
      or excluding disability, incapacity to work or invalidity                and scope of the authorities’ obligations to inform the
      do not fall within the scope of application of the provision             public are sufficiently clear and are not a matter of choice
      referred to in Question 1 above, whether or not the                      by the administrative authorities, as is the case with an
      doctor who acts as an expert is instructed by a court or a               administrative instruction.
      pension insurance institution?
                                                                         —     Failure to implement Article 7 of the directive: In the
                                                                               Commission’s view legally binding provisions are also
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                                 necessary in order to implement Article 7 of the directive.
                                                                               The provision made there for persons involved in emerg-
                                                                               ency assistance to be informed is not, however, ensured
                                                                               in Germany by means of binding legal provisions.


title: Case C-148/12: Order of the President of the Court of 13 March 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany, supported by: Republic of France, Romania, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Slovak Republic

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 13 March 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany, supported by: Republic of France, Romania, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Slovak Republic
   (Case C-148/12) (1)

   2013/C 156/42
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.