title: Case C-13/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace di Genova by order of 4 January 2001 in the case of Safalero Srl against Prefetto di Genova

text:
C 79/16               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.3.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace                    —     during the period prescribed for the transposition of
di Genova by order of 4 January 2001 in the case of                                the directive itself;
           Safalero Srl against Prefetto di Genova
                                                                             —     after expiry, without transposition, of the period?
                         (Case C-13/01)
                                                                             If the answer to the above is in the positive, what is the
                                                                             meaning of the Community concept of ‘measure liable
                                                                             seriously to compromise the result prescribed by the
                         (2001/C 79/27)
                                                                             directive’?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (1) OJ 1999 L 91, p. 10.
European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace di
Genova (District Court, Genoa) of 4 January 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 11 January 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Safalero Srl against Prefetto di
Genova on the following questions:
(1) Are the rules on procedure and on sanctions for adminis-
     trative infringements, laid down by Law No 689 of                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
     24 November 1981 compatible with the principles of
                                                                       richt Hannover by order of 6 December 2000 in the case
     proportionality, effectiveness and adequate legal protec-
                                                                       of Molkerei Wagenfeld Karl Niemann GmbH & Co. KG v
     tion of the rights conferred by Community law on                                     Bezirksregierung Hannover
     individuals, laid down in the Treaty and/or set out and
     defined in the case-law of the Court of Justice, where:
                                                                                (Case C-14/01)
     —     the offender cannot institute court proceedings
           against a measure authorising seizure adopted by the                                  (2001/C 79/28)
           administrative authorities until the administrative
           authorities themselves, without being constrained to        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
           observe procedural time-limits, have applied to the         European Communities by order of 6 December 2000 by the
           courts for an interim order or a confiscation order;        Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Administrative Court, Hann-
                                                                       over), which was received at the Court Registry on 12 January
                                                                       2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Molkerei
     —     a person directly and individually concerned by a           Wagenfeld Karl Niemann GmbH & Co. KG v Bezirksregierung
           measure adopted by the administrative authorities is        Hannover on the following questions:
           not allowed to institute court proceedings where the
           measure itself is addressed to other persons;
                                                                       Does Regulation (EC) No 2799/1999 (1) in conjunction with
                                                                       its annexes contravene
     —     a person directly and individually concerned by a
           measure adopted by the administrative authorities           (a)   Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 (2),
           and addressed to other persons is not allowed to
           participate, even as a voluntary intervener, in court       (b) the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC, and
           proceedings brought against such a measure;
                                                                       (c)   the general legal principles of the European Community
                                                                             and the principle of the protection of legitimate expec-
     —     provision is made, without it being possible for a
           court to make a different and unfettered assessment,              tations,
           for the additional penalty of confiscation of the
           goods in the event of a purely administrative               inasmuch as the aforesaid regulation precludes aid from being
           infringement, the main penalty for which is pecuni-         granted for skimmed milk and buttermilk for liquid feed unless
           ary and involves payment of a quite modest sum of           that milk is first processed into compound feedingstuffs or
           money?                                                      into skimmed-milk powder, and makes no provision for a
                                                                       transitional period; is it on those grounds void (in part)?
(2) Do Articles 10 and 249 of the Treaty precludes Member
     States from adopting measures contrary to Directive               (1) OJ L 340 of 31.12.1999, p. 3.
     1999/5/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the               (2) OJ L 160 of 26.6.1999, p. 48.
     Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and
     telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual
     recognition of their conformity:


title: Case T-384/15: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — EDF Luminus v Parliament (Arbitration clause — Electricity supply contract CNT (2009) N° 137 — Payment by the Parliament of the regional contribution made by the applicant to the Brussels-Capital Region and calculated on the basis of the power made available to the Parliament — No contractual obligation — No obligation under national law)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/44

         Order of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — EDF Luminus v Parliament
   (Case T-384/15) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Electricity supply contract CNT (2009) No 137 - Payment by the Parliament of the regional contribution made by the applicant to the Brussels-Capital Region and calculated on the basis of the power made available to the Parliament - No contractual obligation - No obligation under national law))
   (2016/C 402/52)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: EDF Luminus (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Verhoeven and O. Vanden Berghe, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Darie and P. Biström, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and I. Martínez del Peral, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action on the basis of Article 272 TFEU seeking an order for the Parliament to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 439 672,95, plus interest, being the amount of the regional contribution paid by the applicant to the Brussels-Capital Region and calculated on the basis of the power made available to the Parliament.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The Parliament’s claim for a declaratory judgment is dismissed.

               3.

               EDF Luminus shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the Parliament.

               4.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case C-457/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Cagliari (Italy) lodged on 2 October 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Claudia Concu and Isabella Melis

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Cagliari (Italy) lodged on 2 October 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Claudia Concu and Isabella Melis
   (Case C-457/14)
   (2014/C 439/32)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale ordinario di Cagliari

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Claudia Concu and Isabella Melis

      Questions referred

               1)

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in [Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10 Costa and Cifone [2012] ECR I-0000] to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?

               2)

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Costa and Cifone to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?


title: Case T-610/13: Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Ecolab USA v OHIM (GREASECUTTER) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark GREASECUTTER — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Ecolab USA v OHIM (GREASECUTTER)
   (Case T-610/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark GREASECUTTER - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 389/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ecolab USA, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Case R 1704/2012-2), concerning the international registration designating the European Community of the word mark GREASECUTTER.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ecolab USA, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case F-3/08: Action brought on 3 January 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/68

         Action brought on 3 January 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-3/08)
   (2008/C 64/112)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Action brought against the defendant's decision refusing the applicant's request to receive an Italian translation of a note addressed to him and drafted in English.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the note dated 15 February 2007, prot. RELEX.K7/PL/dgD(2007)502497;

               —

               annulment of the defendant's decision, however formulated, rejecting the request of 27 January 2007 submitted by the applicant to the appointing authority;

               —

               annulment, so far as may be necessary, of the decision, however formulated, rejecting the complaint of 26 May 2007 submitted by the applicant to the appointing authority;

               —

               an order that the defendant should indemnify the applicant for the damage caused by the measures whose annulment is sought in the sum of EUR 1 000 or such greater or lesser sum as the Court of First Instance may think fit;

               —

               an order that the defendant should pay the costs.


title: Case C-226/01: Action brought on 6 June 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark

text:
C 212/18               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.7.2001
Appeal brought on 28 May 2001 against the decision                            to Community law is a decision of a supreme court of a
handed down on 28 March 2001 by the Court of First                            Member State, such as, as in this case, the Verwaltungsger-
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber)                          ichtshof?
in Case T-130/00 between Javier Reyna González del
Valle and the Commission of the European Communities                    2.    If the answer to Question 1 is yes:
                        (Case C-219/01 P)                                     Is the case-law of the Court of Justice according to which
                                                                              it is for the legal system of each Member State to
                                                                              determine which court or tribunal has jurisdiction to
                         (2001/C 212/31)
                                                                              hear disputes involving individual rights derived from
                                                                              Community law (see inter alia Case C-54/96 Dorsch
An appeal against the decision handed down on 28 March                        [1997] ECR I-4961) also applicable when the conduct of
2001 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-                  an institution purportedly contrary to Community law is
ties (First Chamber) in Case T-130/00 between Javier Reyna                    a judgment of a supreme court of a Member State, such
González del Valle and the Commission of the European                        as, as in this case, the Verwaltungsgerichtshof?
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 28 May 2001 by Javier Reyna                     3.    If the answer to Question 2 is yes:
González del Valle, represented by J.M. Valoria de Arana,
abogado.                                                                      Does the legal interpretation given in the above-men-
                                                                              tioned judgment of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, accord-
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:                        ing to which the special length of service increment is a
                                                                              form of loyalty bonus, breach a rule of directly applicable
—     set aside the contested order in its entirety and                       Community law, in particular the prohibition on indirect
—     uphold all the claims which he brought before the Court                 discrimination in Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now
      of First Instance.                                                      Article 39 EC) and the relevant settled case-law of the
                                                                              Court of Justice?
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         4.    If the answer to Question 3 is yes:
Although Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations of                       Is this rule of directly applicable Community law such as
Officials of the European Communities do not make any                         to create a subjective right for the plaintiff in the main
distinction between irregularities which render a measure void                proceedings?
and those which render it merely voidable, that does not mean
that an administrative measure which is void is always subject          5.    If the answer to Question 4 is yes?:
to the time-limits for bringing proceedings prescribed by those
articles.                                                                     Does the Court of Justice of the European Community
                                                                              have sufficient information in the content of the order
                                                                              for reference to enable it to rule itself as to whether the
                                                                              Verwaltungsgerichtshof in the circumstances of the main
                                                                              proceedings described has clearly and significantly
                                                                              exceeded the discretion available to it, or is it for the
                                                                              referring Austrian court to answer that question.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
für Zivilrechtsachen (Regional Civil Court) — by order of
that court of 7 May 2001 in the case of Dr. Gerhard
                  Köbler v Republic of Austria
                         (Case C-224/01)
                         (2001/C 212/32)
                                                                        Action brought on 6 June 2001 by the Commission of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark
European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht für
Zivilrechtsachen of 7 May 2001, which was received at the                                         (Case C-226/01)
Court Registry on 6 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Dr. Gerhard Köbler v Republic of Austria on the
following questions:                                                                              (2001/C 212/33)
1.    Is the case-law of the Court of Justice to the effect that it
      is immaterial as regards State liability for a breach of          An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought
      Community law which institution of a Member State is              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      responsible for that breach (see Joined Cases C-46/93 and         6 June 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
      C-48/93 Factortame [1996 ECR I-1029) also applicable              ties, represented by Hans Støvlbæk, acting as Agent, with an
      when the conduct of an institution purportedly contrary           address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 28.7.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 212/19
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Action brought on 7 June 2001 by the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary
      to guarantee the quality of bathing water in accordance
      with the limit values in Directive 76/160/EEC (1) and by                                    (Case C-227/01)
      failing to comply with the minimum frequency of
      sampling operations, as required under that directive, the
      Kingdom of Denmark has failed, within the terms of                                          (2001/C 212/34)
      Article 226 EC, to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1)
      and 6(1) of Directive 76/160/EEC concerning the quality
      of bathing water;                                                   An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 June
                                                                          2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
—     order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs of the
                                                                          represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, with an address for
      present proceedings.
                                                                          service in Luxembourg at the office of Gérard Berscheid,
                                                                          Wagner Centre C 254.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     declare that by not carrying out an environmental impact
                                                                                assessment in connection with the ‘Valencia Tarragona
—     Article 4(1) of the directive, in conjunction with Articles 3             railway project, Las Palmas-Oropesa section. Platform’, a
      and 5(1) thereof, requires Member States to take measures                 project forming part of that known as the ‘Mediterranean
      to ensure that a specific result is achieved before the                   Corridor’, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
      expiry of a set period (10 December 1985), and, apart                     obligations under Articles 2, 3, 5(2) and 6(2) of Council
      from the exceptions laid down in the directive, a Member                  Directive 85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assess-
      State cannot plead special circumstances as a ground for                  ment of the effects of certain public and private projects
      failure to comply with that obligation. It follows that                   on the environment;
      Denmark cannot successfully argue that compliance with
      the directive is satisfied if it simply adopts measures with        —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
      a view to complying therewith. Denmark cannot invoke
      Article 5(2) as a ground for adjusting compliance percent-
      ages in respect of ’fortuitous excesses’ deemed to result
      from pollution by animals or heavy rain, inasmuch as                Pleas in law and main arguments
      those conditions, which are in no wise documented,
      cannot be regarded as constituting abnormal weather
      conditions.
                                                                          Failure to comply with Directive 85/337/EEC in preparing
                                                                          the railway project: The project was not subjected to the
—     Obligation under Article 6(1): the Commission can accept            environmental impact assessment provided for in the directive,
      that the directive provides the possibility of reducing the         which was compulsory in this instance as the project was one
      number of sampling operations. However, with regard to              of those referred to in Point 7 of Annex I to the directive. The
      the 11 specific bathing areas in respect of which the               section of railway to which the present action relates involves
      Commission requested more detailed information, Den-                the construction of a line for long-distance railway traffic in at
      mark has merely provided documentation stating that                 least two senses: duplication of the existing line and construc-
      the Danish rules, under which the number of sampling                tion of a new line in the municipal terminal of Benicassim.
      operations may be reduced by a factor of 2, that is to say,         The Commission considers that the fact that the General
      from 10 to 5, if the quality of the bathing water has, over         Development Plan for Benicassim was the subject of an impact
      the course of two successive bathing seasons, been of               assessment does not excuse the Spanish Government from
      better quality than that prescribed in the directive, had           subjecting the railway project to which the present action
      been complied with in three cases.                                  relates to the impact assessment procedure. Having regard to
                                                                          the lack of detail in which that Plan refers to the route of the
                                                                          Las Palmas-Oropesa railway section and the non-existence of
                                                                          studies into the effects of the project on the environment, a
(1) Council Directive of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of        specific environmental impact procedure was necessary in
    bathing water, OJ 1975 L 31, p. 1.                                    order to comply with the obligations arising under Directive
                                                                          85/337/EEC.
                                                                          Last, the Commission considers that the Environmental Impact
                                                                          Study drawn up in connection with the drafting of Amendment
                                                                          No 3 to the Construction Project not only covered only part


title: Case T-142/13: Action brought on 13 March 2013 — Jinko Solar and Others v Parliament and Others

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/23

         Action brought on 13 March 2013 — Jinko Solar and Others v Parliament and Others
   (Case T-142/13)
   2013/C 123/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Jinko Solar Co. Ltd (Shangrao, China); Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co. Ltd (Haining City, China); Jiangxi Jinko Photovoltaic Materials Co. Ltd (Shangrao); Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. Ltd (Shangrao, China); and Zhejiang Jinko Trading Co. Ltd (Haining City) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Parliament, European Commission, Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2012 L 344, p. 1), insofar as it was applied to the applicants,

               —

               Annul the Commission's Decision of 3 January 2013 by which it refused to consider the applicants' market economy treatment claims; and

               —

               Order the defendants to pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law alleging that Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012, as applied by the Commission to the applicants in the 3 January 2013 Decision, and the 3 January 2013 Decision stating that the Commission would not consider the applicants' market economy treatment claims, frustrate the legitimate expectations of the applicants and are applied retroactively to the detriment of the applicants without valid justifications. As a result, Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012, as applied by the Commission to the applicants by the 3 January 2013 Decision, and the 3 January 2013 Decision, manifestly violate the basic principles of legal certainty and good faith.


7.12.2002              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 305/19
        Removal from the register of Case C-124/01 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-45/02 (1)
                          (2002/C 305/36)                                                      (2002/C 305/39)
By order of 20 September 2002 the President of the Court of           By order of 10 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               of the European Communities ordered the removal from
from the register of Case C-124/01: Commission of the                 the register of Case C-45/02: Commission of the European
European Communities v Italian Republic.                              Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-150/01 ( 1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-70/02 (1)
                          (2002/C 305/37)
                                                                                (2002/C 305/40)
By order of 30 September 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               By order of 20 September 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-150/01: Commission of the
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                      from the register of Case C-70/02: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Italian Republic.
( 1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-443/01 ( 1)
                          (2002/C 305/38)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-221/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 305/41)
By order of 28 August 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-443/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Vestre Landsret): Poul Nørgaard v Skatteminis-          By order of 25 September 2002 the President of the Court of
teriet.                                                               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-221/02: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v French Republic.
( 1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.


title: Case C-262/07P: Appeal brought on 1 June 2007 by Tokai Europe GmbH against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2007 in Case T-183/04 Tokai Europe GmbH v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/16

         Appeal brought on 1 June 2007 by Tokai Europe GmbH against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2007 in Case T-183/04 Tokai Europe GmbH v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-262/07P)
   (2007/C 170/30)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Tokai Europe GmbH (represented by G. Kroemer, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 19 March 2007 in Case T-183/04 (1) and declare the application to be admissible;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside the order referred to above and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance in order for it to give a ruling on the substance;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By its appeal, the appellant raises the following complaints, which relate to the infringement by the order under appeal of procedural requirements of Community law, by which its interests were prejudiced and which went so far as to affect the content of the order under appeal. They relate to the observance of the right to be heard and measures of inquiry.
   The Court of First Instance ordered that the decision on the respondent's objection of inadmissibility should be reserved until final judgment. Following the lodging of the response by the respondent, it closed the written procedure and indicated that the date for the hearing would be notified to the parties at a later date. The applicant had accordingly, in reliance on a date being fixed for a hearing and, above all, on the basis of the order made by the Court, waived its right to present a request under Article 47(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that the documents be supplemented. Notwithstanding its earlier indication, the Court ultimately made the order under appeal without there being a hearing.
   The appellant proceeded on the basis that it would be able to provide further justification at the hearing that was to be notified for its claim that there are no products on the market that are similar to the small metal wheels that are supplied by its Japanese parent company to manufacturers in Hong Kong and Mexico. In addition, it was its intention to make it clear once again that the wheels in question are not ‘friction wheels’, as the respondent incorrectly indicated in its response. The appellant also wished to explain at the hearing that the small metal wheels that were represented in the disputed classification regulation could only have been produced by its parent company in Japan and that it was accordingly not a question of small metal wheels of a generic nature as the Court of First Instance indicated in the order under appeal. It also intended to rebut the Commission's contentions that it was not the sole importer of Tokai cigarette lighters.
   However, as is clear from the order under appeal itself, the Court of First Instance adopted the Commission's arguments as to the admissibility of the action set out in its response, without, as mentioned, giving the appellant the opportunity to challenge the version of the events put forward by the respondent. The appellant claims that this represents an infringement of its right to a fair hearing.
   The Court of First Instance is also under a duty to establish the facts. In so doing, it is not restricted in the proceedings before it simply to establishing the facts in reliance on the requests of the parties for measures of inquiry and to reach a decision on the basis of the evidence led before it alone. Therefore, not only can it take the initiative of its own motion, but it is also under a duty to take the initiative where this is necessary. Accordingly, the Court of First Instance was under a duty to clarify the evidence put forward by the applicant in its written pleadings and, by making the appropriate orders, to call upon the parties to submit relevant documents and evidence. Since this did not happen, the Court of First Instance infringed Article 64(3)(d) of its Rules of Procedure.

      (1)  Not published.


title: Case T-95/17: Action brought on 13 February 2017 — King.com v EUIPO — TeamLava (Screen displays and icons)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/45

         Action brought on 13 February 2017 — King.com v EUIPO — TeamLava (Screen displays and icons)
   (Case T-95/17)
   (2017/C 112/62)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: King.com Ltd (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor and T. Dolde, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TeamLava LLC (Redwood Suite, California, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

      Design at issue: Community design No 2216416-0054

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1/12/2016 in Case R 1947/2015-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 6/2002;


               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/1

         (2009/C 82/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 69, 21.3.2009

   Past publications

      OJ C 55, 7.3.2009

      OJ C 44, 21.2.2009

      OJ C 32, 7.2.2009

      OJ C 19, 24.1.2009

      OJ C 6, 10.1.2009

      OJ C 327, 20.12.2008

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-196/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 April 2011 by Formula One Licensing BV against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 17 February 2011 in Case T-10/09: Formula One Licensing BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Global Sports Media Ltd

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/13

         Appeal brought on 27 April 2011 by Formula One Licensing BV against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 17 February 2011 in Case T-10/09: Formula One Licensing BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Global Sports Media Ltd
   (Case C-196/11 P)
   2011/C 179/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Formula One Licensing BV (represented by: K. Sandberg, B. Klingberg, Rechtsanwältinen)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Global Sports Media Ltd

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               uphold the Appellant's application for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 16 October 2008 in case R 7/2008-1 or, alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration; and

               —

               order OHIM to and the Intervener to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Appellant, both at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant claims the infringement of Union Law, namely the erroneous application of Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation No. 40/94 (1) (now No 207/09) as well as of Article 8 (5) of Regulation No 40/94, based on the following main arguments:

               1.

               The General Court violated Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation No 40/94 in the following regards:

                           1.1.

                           The General Court erred in law in its consideration of the distinctive character of the designation ‘F 1’. Firstly, the General Court violated the rule of established case-law that the distinctive character of a trade mark must be assessed by reference to the concrete goods and services covered by the mark. Secondly, the respective findings were based on distortion of the facts. Thirdly, the General Court failed to apply the rule of established case-law that the acquisition of the distinctive character of a mark may also be a result of its use as part of another registered trademark. Fourthly, the General Court's findings in this regard led to them applying an inadmissible de facto annulment of the Appellant's registered trademarks ‘F 1’ in standard typeset.

                           1.2.

                           The General Court erred in law in its consideration of the likelihood of confusion under Art. 8 (1) (b) of Regulation No 40/94 both with regard to the opposition marks ‘F 1’ in standard typeset as well as the ‘F 1 Formula 1’ logotype. Firstly, it did not take into account the relevant factor of identity respectively high similarity in goods and services despite its own finding of a relevant degree of similarity in signs. Secondly, it focused on the factor of distinctiveness of the term ‘F 1’ to the exclusion of other relevant factors confirmed in established case-law. Thirdly, it failed to assess the similarity of the signs in accordance with the degree of resemblance between them.

               2.

               The General Court violated Article 8 (5) of Regulation No 40/94 in the following regards:

                           2.1.

                           The General Court erroneously excluded the reputation of the Appellant's trademarks ‘F 1’ in standard typeset.

                           2.2.

                           The General Court furthermore erred in law in its consideration of the similarity in signs with regard to the opposition mark ‘F1 Formula 1’ logotype as it falsely assumed the absence of distinctiveness of the term ‘F 1’.

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


title: Case F-39/08: Action brought on 31 March 2008 — Lebedef v Commission

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/27

         Action brought on 31 March 2008 — Lebedef v Commission
   (Case F-39/08)
   (2008/C 158/49)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of several decisions relating to the deduction of 32 days of the applicant's leave entitlement for the year 2007.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions of 29 May 2007, 20 June 2007, 28 June 2007 and 6 July 2007, two decisions of 26 July 2007 and the decision of 2 August 2007 relating to the deduction of 32 days of the applicant's leave entitlement for the year 2007;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs


title: Case T-50/06: Action brought on  17 February 2006  — Ireland v Commission

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/40

         Action brought on 17 February 2006 — Ireland v Commission
   (Case T-50/06)
   (2006/C 86/79)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ireland [represented by: D. O'Hagan, agent, P. McGarry, Barrister]

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, in whole or in part, pursuant to Article 230 of the Treaty, Commission Decision C[2005] 4436 Final of 7 December insofar as it relates to the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Shannon region implemented by Ireland;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In 1970 a commitment was given to the promoters of Aughinish in respect of exemptions from customs duties on fuel oil to be used in the production of alumina in the then proposed plant at Shannon, Ireland. In 1983, the plant at Aughinish went into operation and the Irish authorities notified the Commission that it intended to implement the commitments in respect of the exemption from excise duty. The applicant states that the exemption was furthermore authorized by virtue of subsequent Council Decisions (1). In 2000, the Commission raised the issue of State aid, which led to the institution of the formal investigation and, finally, the adoption of the contested decision.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission is wrong in law in concluding that the aid concerned constitutes new aid, as opposed to existing aid.
   According to the applicant, even if the aid constituted new aid and was required to be notified upon its implementation in 1983, the Commission accepts that the aid was notified at that time. The failure of the Commission to take any decision within the time periods devised by itself rendered the aid concerned existing aid. In the alternative, the Commission treated the aid as existing aid at all material times, and the unequivocal statement made by it in 1992 confirms this to be the case.
   Furthermore, by virtue of Article 15 read in conjunction with Article 1(b)(iv) of Regulation 659/1999 (2) since aid has been in existence in excess of ten years and the limitation period specified therein has expired, the aid has become existing aid and the procedures adopted by the Commission in relation to the supervision thereof are flawed.
   In relation to its first plea, the applicant also claims that the aid was the subject of legally binding commitments entered into on the part of the Irish authorities prior to accession in 1973. According to the applicant the aid should have been found to constitute existing aid on this heading alone.
   The applicant pleads by way of additional plea that the decision is in breach of the principle of legal certainty in circumstances where it conflicts with the unanimous decision of the Council taken on foot of a proposal submitted by the Commission. The decision is also in direct conflict with the provision of Article 8(5) of Directive 92/81/EEC (3) on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on mineral oils, which required the Commission to submit a proposal in respect of distortions of competition or incompatibility with the internal market for the unanimous approval of the Council.
   Furthermore, the Commission has allegedly infringed, at least insofar as the beneficiary of the aid measure is concerned, the principle of legitimate expectation in circumstances where the Council has expressly authorised the derogation until 31 December 2006.
   Finally, it is submitted that the Commission has breached a fundamental rule of law and has misused its powers by virtue of its conduct, including its delay in taking the contested decision, having regard in particular to the fact that it was first notified of the aid in question in 1983. In addition, the Commission disregarded the procedures contained in Directive 92/81/EEC, and made public statements regarding the compatibility of the aid scheme in issue. By virtue of its conduct therefore, the Commission is estopped from ordering the recovery of the aid in all the circumstances.

      (1)  92/510/EEC: Council Decision of 19 October 1992 authorizing Member States to continue to apply to certain mineral oils when used for specific purposes, existing reduced rates of excise duty or exemptions from excise duty, in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 8 (4) of Directive 92/81/EEC (OJ L 316, p. 16) and other subsequent decisions.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83, p. 1)

      (3)  Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ L 316, p. 12)


title: Order of the Court of 31 March 2016 in Case E-4/15 — Icelandic Financial Services Association v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Admissibility — Locus standi — Status of an association)

text:
               2.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 33/6

         ORDER OF THE COURT
   of 31 March 2016
   in Case E-4/15
   Icelandic Financial Services Association v EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Admissibility — Locus standi — Status of an association)
   (2017/C 33/05)
   In Case E-4/15: Icelandic Financial Services Association v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 298/14/COL of 16 July 2014, notified in OJ C 400, 13.11.2014, p. 13 and EEA Supplement No 66, 13.11.2014, p. 1 (‘the contested decision’), to close the case concerning existing aid to the Icelandic Housing Financing Fund (Íbúðalánasjóður), the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave order of 31 March 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               Icelandic Financial Services Association is to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the EFTA Surveillance Authority;

               3.

               The Government of Iceland is to bear its own costs.


title: Case T-344/07: Action brought on 10 September 2007 — O2 (Germany) v OHIM (Homezone)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/60

         Action brought on 10 September 2007 — O2 (Germany) v OHIM (Homezone)
   (Case T-344/07)
   (2007/C 269/108)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: O2 (Germany) GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany) (represented by A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

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

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2007 in Case R 1583/2006-4 in so far as it rejects the application;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those of the proceedings before OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Homezone’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 (application No 4 677 506).

      Decision of the Examiner: In part, rejection of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).

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


title: Case F-29/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 December 2010 — Lorenzo v European Social and Economic Committee

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/16

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 December 2010 — Lorenzo v European Social and Economic Committee
   (Case F-29/10) (1)

   2011/C 46/30
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010, p. 59.


title: Case C-265/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social 2 de Terrassa (Barcelona) lodged on 15 May 2013 — Emiliano Torralbo Marcos v Korota S.A. and Fondo de Garantía Salarial

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/29

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social 2 de Terrassa (Barcelona) lodged on 15 May 2013 — Emiliano Torralbo Marcos v Korota S.A. and Fondo de Garantía Salarial
   (Case C-265/13)
   2013/C 207/47
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social 2 de Terrassa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Emiliano Torralbo Marcos

      Defendants: Korota S.A. and Fondo de Garantía Salarial

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 1, 2(f), 3(1), 4(2)(a), 4(3), 5(3), 6, 7 and 8(1) and 8(2) of Law No 10/2012 of 20 November 2012 regulating certain fees relating to the administration of justice and to the National Institute of Toxicology and Forensic Science (Ley 10/201, de 20 de noviembre 2012, por la que se regulan determinadas tasas en el ámbito de la Administración de Justicia y del Instituto Nacional de Toxicología y Ciencias Forenses) contrary to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) in that they do not permit a national court to: (a) adjust judicial fees or to assess reasons of proportionality (relating to the basis for charging the fees on the part of the State or to their amount as constituting an obstacle to obtaining an effective remedy) for the purposes of exemption; (b) have regard to the principle of effectiveness in the application of provisions of Union law; or (c) assess the importance of the proceedings to the parties in the light of the circumstances, when payment of judicial fees is a prerequisite to obtaining leave to proceed with the appeal lodged?

               2.

               Are Articles 1, 2(f), 3(1), 4(2)(a), 4(3), 5(3), 6, 7 and 8(1) and 8(2) of Law No 10/2012 of 20 November 2012 regulating certain fees relating to the administration of justice and to the National Institute of Toxicology and Forensic Science (Ley 10/2012, de 20 de noviembre, por la que se regulan determinadas tasas en el ámbito de la Administración de justicia y del Instituto Nacional de Toxicología y Ciencias Forenses) contrary to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that the latter applies to special procedures, as in the case of an employment court or tribunal, in which Union law is commonly applied as a fundamental aspect of balanced economic and social development in the Community?

               3.

               In connection with the foregoing questions, is it open to a court such as the referring court to refrain from applying legislation such as the legislation at issue which does not permit a national court to: (a) adjust judicial fees or to assess reasons of proportionality (relating to the basis for charging the fees on the part of the State or to their amount as constituting an obstacle to obtaining an effective remedy) for the purposes of exemption; (b) have regard to the principle of effectiveness in the application of provisions of Union law; or (c) assess the importance of the proceedings to the parties in the light of the circumstances, when payment of judicial fees is a prerequisite to obtaining leave to proceed with the appeal lodged?

      (1)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.


title: Case T-118/12: Action brought on 14 March 2012 — ANKO v Commission

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/19

         Action brought on 14 March 2012 — ANKO v Commission
   (Case T-118/12)
   2012/C 138/36
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: ANKO Anonimos Etairia Antiprosopion, Emporiou kai Viomikhanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Khristianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare that the failure by the Commission to pay the balance of the financial support for the applicant in respect of the contract for the project ‘PERceptive Spaces promoting iNdependent Aging (PERSONA)’, amounting to EUR 6 752,74, constitutes a breach of its contractual obligations;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 6 752,74, in respect of the expenditure incurred by the applicant during the fourth reference period of the PERSONA project, together with the interest provided for by paragraph 7 of Clause II.28 of Annex II to the principal contract from service of the present action;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action concerns liability of the Commission under contract No 045459 for the carrying out of the project ‘PERceptive Spaces promoting iNdependent Aging (PERSONA)’, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU.
   Specifically, the applicant submits that, although it duly performed its contractual obligations in full, the Commission suspended payment to it without being entitled to do so and in breach of the foregoing contract and of the principle of good faith. For that reason, the applicant submits that the Commission must pay to it the sum of EUR 6 752,74, together with the interest provided for by paragraph 7 of Clause II.28 of Annex II to the principal contract.


title: Case C-315/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Monselice (Italy)) — Lidl Italia Srl v Comune di Arcole (VR) (Directive 2000/13/EC — Labelling of foodstuffs to be delivered as such to the ultimate consumer — Scope of the obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 12 — Compulsory statement of the alcoholic strength by volume for certain alcoholic beverages — Alcoholic beverage produced in a Member State other than that in which the distributor is established — Amaro alle erbe — Actual alcoholic strength by volume lower than that appearing on the label — Overstepping of the tolerance — Administrative fine — Liability of the distributor)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/14

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Monselice (Italy)) — Lidl Italia Srl v Comune di Arcole (VR)
   (Case C-315/05) (1)

   (Directive 2000/13/EC - Labelling of foodstuffs to be delivered as such to the ultimate consumer - Scope of the obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 12 - Compulsory statement of the alcoholic strength by volume for certain alcoholic beverages - Alcoholic beverage produced in a Member State other than that in which the distributor is established - ‘Amaro alle erbe’ - Actual alcoholic strength by volume lower than that appearing on the label - Overstepping of the tolerance - Administrative fine - Liability of the distributor)
   (2006/C 331/23)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Giudice di pace di Monselice (Italy)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lidl Italia Srl

      Defendant: Comune di Arcole (VR)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di Pace di Monselice — Interpretation of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29) — Scope of the obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 12 of the directive — Alcoholic beverage produced and packaged in another Member State having an alcohol content lower than that stated on the label — ‘Amaro alle erbe’
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 2, 3 and 12 of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs are to be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes it possible for an operator, established in that Member State, which distributes a pre-packaged alcoholic beverage to be delivered as such within the meaning of Article 1 of that directive, produced by an operator established in another Member State, to be held liable for an infringement of that provision, established by a public authority, resulting from the producer's inaccurate statement on the product label of the alcoholic strength by volume of the product and, consequently, to be penalised by an administrative fine, even where, as the mere distributor, it simply markets the product as delivered to it by the producer.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: Case C-560/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 4 November 2016 — Michael Dědouch and Others v Jihočeská plynárenská, a.s., E.ON Czech Holding AG

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 4 November 2016 — Michael Dědouch and Others v Jihočeská plynárenská, a.s., E.ON Czech Holding AG
   (Case C-560/16)
   (2017/C 022/17)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší soud České republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Michael Dědouch, MUDr. Petr Streitberg, Pavel Suda

      Defendants: Jihočeská plynárenská, a.s., E.ON Czech Holding AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 22(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Brussels I Regulation’) be interpreted as also covering proceedings for the review of the reasonableness of the consideration which a majority shareholder is required to provide, as equivalent value for participating securities, to the previous owners of participating securities which were transferred to it as a result of a decision at a general meeting of a public limited company on the compulsory transfer of the other participating securities to that majority shareholder (otherwise known as a ‘squeeze out’), where the resolution adopted at the general meeting of the public limited company determines the amount of the reasonable consideration and where there is a court decision granting entitlement to a different amount of consideration which is binding on the majority shareholder and on the company as regards the basis of the right granted, as well as vis-à-vis the other owners of the participating securities?

               2.

               If the answer to the preceding question is [in the] negative, must Article 5(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation be interpreted as also covering proceedings for review of the reasonableness of the consideration described in the previous question?

               3.

               If the answer to both the preceding questions is in the negative, must Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation be interpreted as also covering proceedings for review of the reasonableness of the consideration described in the first question?

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


title: Case T-207/07: Action brought on 7 June 2007 — Eurallumina v Commission

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/36

         Action brought on 7 June 2007 — Eurallumina v Commission
   (Case T-207/07)
   (2007/C 183/71)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Eurallumina SpA (Portoscuso, Italy) (represented by: L. Martin Alegi, R. Denton and E. Cormack, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Either:

                           —

                           annul the entirety of the contested decision; or

                           —

                           order that the present exemption authorised by Council Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006 and that any sums foregone by the Italian State should not be considered as unlawful State aid, or at least not be recovered; or

                           —

                           annul the entirety of the contested decision and order that the present exemption authorised by Council Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006 and that any sums foregone by the Italian State should not be considered as unlawful State aid, or at least not be recovered; or

                           —

                           order that a maximum of 3 EUR per tonne should be recovered.

               —

               Either:

                           —

                           annul Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the contested decision insofar as they pertain to Eurallumina; or

                           —

                           order that the present exemption authorised by Council Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006 and that any sums foregone by the Italian State should not be considered unlawful State aid, or at least not be recovered; or

                           —

                           annul Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the contested decision insofar as they pertain to Eurallumina and order that the present exemption authorised by Council Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006 and that any sums foregone by the Italian State should not be considered as unlawful State aid, or at least not be recovered; or

                           —

                           order that a maximum of 3 EUR per tonne should be recovered.

                           —

                           In the alternative, modify Articles 5 and 6 of the contested decision insofar as they pertain to Eurallumina to the effect that pursuant to the present exemption until 31 December 2006, any sums foregone by the Italian State should not be recovered; and

                           —

                           order that the Commission pay all of the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 286 final of 7 February 2007 by which the Commission found that the exemptions from excise duty granted by France, Ireland and Italy in respect of heavy fuel oils used in the production of alumina as from 1 January 2004 constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC and that a certain part of this aid was incompatible with the common market.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the continuation of the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Sardinia also after the entry into force of Council Directive 2003/96/EC (1) on 1 January 2004 does not constitute State aid, as Article 18(1) of the directive and Annex II hereto expressly state that this exemption, which was approved by Council Decision 2001/224/EC (2), continues until 31 December 2006. According to the applicant, Directive 2003/96/EC thus expressly revalidates the specific exemption from excise duty granted to the applicant until 31 December 2006.
   Furthermore, the applicant alleges that even though the exemption approved by Council Decision 2001/224/EC is a selective measure at first sight, it is justified by the ‘overall nature and logic’ of both the Community rules and the Italian tax system, and thus is not State aid.
   Moreover, the applicant submits that even if the exemption approved by Council Decision 2001/224/EC is to be considered State aid, it qualifies for an exemption from the prohibition of Article 87(1) EC under the rules for environmental aid (3).
   Finally, the applicant contends that the Commission breached the principles of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, presumption of validity, lex specialis, effet utile and good administration by finding that the application of the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used for alumina production in, among others, Sardinia was a State aid recoverable from 1 January 2004, as the applicant had the right to expect that the exemption approved by Council Decision 2001/224/EC until 31 December 2006 was a legally valid Community act and that any measure taken by the Italian authorities and the applicant to implement and rely on this decision would not lead to an unlawful result.

      (1)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).

      (2)  Council Decision 2001/224/EC of 12 March 2001 concerning reduced rates of excise duty and exemptions from such duty on certain mineral oils when used for specific purposes (OJ 2001 L 84, p. 23).

      (3)  Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (OJ 2001 C 37, p. 3), in particular paragraph 51(1)(a) and (b).


title: Case C-175/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2012 — Sandler AG v Hauptzollamt Regensburg

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2012 — Sandler AG v Hauptzollamt Regensburg
   (Case C-175/12)
   2012/C 194/17
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sandler AG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Regensburg

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the second indent of the first subparagraph of Article 889(1) of the Customs Code Implementing Provisions (1) to be interpreted as only regulating cases of requests for repayment where goods were first released for free circulation at the third-country duty rate and it subsequently transpires that at the time when the customs declaration was accepted a reduced or zero rate of import duty (here: preferential tariff rate) actually existed, but had already expired again when the request for repayment is made, with the result that the expiry of a temporary preferential tariff arrangement cannot be invoked against an operator in connection with submission of a request for repayment where the preferential tariff rate is granted during clearance and preferential treatment is refused and the third-country duty rate applied only upon post-clearance recovery by the administration?

               2.

               Are Article 16(1)(b) and Article 32 of Protocol 1 to Annex V of the Cotonou Agreement (2) to be interpreted to the effect that, if the exporting State endorses an EUR.1 movement certificate with a stamp other than the specimen impression of the stamp notified to the Commission, the customs authorities of the importing State may treat such a variation, in cases of doubt, as a technical deficiency for the purposes of Article 16(1)(b) of Protocol 1 to Annex V of the Cotonou Agreement and thus declare invalid the EUR.1 movement certificate without the participation of the customs authorities of the exporting State?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           Is Article 16(1)(b) of Protocol 1 to Annex V of the Cotonou Agreement applicable even where the technical deficiency is not detected immediately at importation, but only during the subsequent verification by the customs authorities?

                           (b)

                           Can Article 16(4) and (5) of Protocol 1 to Annex V of the Cotonou Agreement be interpreted to the effect that a technical deficiency is considered to be rectified where, in the case of an EUR.1 movement certificate issued retrospectively, one of the indications provided for in Article 16(4) of Protocol 1 to Annex V of the Cotonou Agreement has not been entered, in its precise wording, in the ‘Remarks’ box, but only a phrase to the effect that the preference certificate was issued retrospectively?

               4.

               If Question 2 is answered in the negative:
               Is Article 236(1) (3) of the Customs Code to be interpreted to the effect that import duties were not legally owed and were therefore wrongly recovered pursuant to Article 220(1) of the Customs Code where the EUR.1 movement certificates originally used could not be declared invalid by the customs authorities of the importing country without the involvement of the customs authorities of the exporting country?

               5.

               In the event that an EUR.1 movement certificate issued retrospectively is presented pursuant to Article 16 of Protocol 1 to Annex V of the Cotonou Agreement, is the repayment of already recovered and paid import duties under Article 889 of the Customs Code Implementing Provisions possible only if the preferential tariff rate still applies at the time of the request for repayment?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1, Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/2007 of 28 February 2007 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 2007 L 62, p. 6).

      (2)  2000/483/EC: Partnership agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (OJ 2000 L 317, p. 3).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).


title: Case T-73/14: Order of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — Red Bull v OHIM — Automobili Lamborghini (Representation of two bulls) (Community trade mark — Application for revocation — Withdrawal of registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/17

         Order of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — Red Bull v OHIM — Automobili Lamborghini (Representation of two bulls)
   (Case T-73/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for revocation - Withdrawal of registration - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 221/23)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: initially, A. Renck, V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers, and I. Fowler, Solicitor, then by A. Renck and I. Fowler)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Automobili Lamborghini SpA (Sant'Agata Bolognese, Italy) (represented by: M. Hartmann, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 November 2013 (Case R 1263/2012-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Automobili Lamborghini SpA and Red Bull GmbH.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Case C-59/06 P: Appeal brought on  3 February 2006  by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment delivered on  24 November 2005  by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-236/02 Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/4

         Appeal brought on 3 February 2006 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment delivered on 24 November 2005 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-236/02 Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-59/06 P)
   (2006/C 96/06)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2005 in Case T-236/02 Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 February 2006 by Luigi Marcuccio, represented by L. Garofolo, avvocato.
   Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: L. Garofolo)
   The other party to the proceedings before the Court of First Instance: Commission
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal and grant the other forms of order sought by the appellant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant claims that the judgment of the Court of First Instance is flawed by reason of:

               1.

               distortion and misrepresentation of the facts and the statements made by the appellant in his written submissions which, in turn, led to substantial inaccuracy in the findings of fact made by the Court of First Instance;

               2.

               failure to give a ruling on a number of fundamental issues in the case;

               3.

               procedural errors of a serious nature such as to damage irreparably the interests of the appellant;

               4.

               total failure to state grounds concerning a number of vital issues in the case by reason, inter alia, of a failure to make inquiries and the fact that the reasons supposedly put forward by way of justification were confused, inconsistent, inadequate, unreasonable, tautologous, arbitrary, self-evident and illogical as regards both primary and secondary grounds;

               5.

               misinterpretation and misapplication of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities;

               6.

               misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept of the right to a fair hearing and unconsidered and illogical failure properly to apply the relevant case-law;

               7.

               misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept of statement of reasons and unconsidered and illogical failure properly to apply the relevant case-law;

               8.

               misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept that a statement of reasons should be consistent;

               9.

               misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept that a preparatory measure cannot be challenged;

               10.

               misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept of an opinion;

               11.

               misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept that a decision that has been issued cannot be amended.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2002 in Case T-92/01: Marie-Claude Girardot v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Recruitment — Selection of members of the temporary staff — Refusal of entry on the reserve list — Composition of the selection board — Equality of treatment)

text:
C 305/22               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           7.12.2002
Grade A 3 to Grade A 6 and, secondly, a claim for compen-                  1.     Annuls the decision of the selection board, contained in the
sation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a                    letter of 13 July 2000, not to enter the applicant’s name on the
result of that decision — the Court of First Instance (Second                     reserve list resulting from selection procedure COM/R/A/01/
Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pir-                        1999;
rung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a
judgment on 11 September 2002, in which it:                                2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
1.     annuls the decision of the Commission of 19 June 2000
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.
       downgrading the applicant from Grade A 3 to Grade A 6;
2.     orders the Commission to pay to the applicant EUR 1 by way
       of compensation for the non-material damage suffered by him;
3.     orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
( 1) OJ No C 227 of 11.8.2001.
                                                                                of 24 September 2002
                                                                           in Case T-102/01: Orlando Pérez-Díaz v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Recruitment — Selection of members of the
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               temporary staff — Refusal of entry on the reserve list —
                                                                              Linguistic competence of members of the selection board)
                      of 24 September 2002
                                                                                (2002/C 305/48)
in Case T-92/01: Marie-Claude Girardot v Commission of                                           (Language of the case: French)
                  the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Recruitment — Selection of members of the
temporary staff — Refusal of entry on the reserve list —                   In Case T-102/01: Orlando Pérez-Díaz, residing in Brussels,
Composition of the selection board — Equality of treatment)                represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer, v Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and
                                                                           H. Tserepa-Lacombe) — application for annulment of the
                         (2002/C 305/47)                                   decision of the selection board, contained in a letter of 14 July
                                                                           2000, refusing to enter the applicant’s name on the reserve list
                                                                           of temporary agents resulting from selection procedure COM/
                    (Language of the case: French)                         R/A/01/1999 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
                                                                           composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and N.J. Forwood and
                                                                           H. Legal, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 September 2002, in
                                                                           which it:
In Case T-92/01: Marie-Claude Girardot, a member of the
temporary staff of the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, residing in Brussels, represented by J.-N. Louis and                 1.     Annuls the decision of the selection board, contained in the
V. Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,                     letter of 14 July 2000, not to enter the applicant’s name on the
v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                                 reserve list resulting from selection procedure COM/R/A/01/
F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and H. Tserepa-Lacombe) — appli-                           1999;
cation for annulment of the decision of the selection board,
contained in a letter of 13 July 2000, refusing to enter the               2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
applicant’s name on the reserve list of temporary agents
resulting from selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999 —
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:                  (1 ) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.
B. Vesterdorf, President, and N. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 24 September 2002, in which it: