title: Case T-5/11: Action brought on 7 January 2011 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/23

         Action brought on 7 January 2011 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council
   (Case T-5/11)
   2011/C 72/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Export Development Bank of Iran (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, avocat)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               annul the decision contained in the Council's letter to the applicant of 28 October 2010;

               —

               declare Decision 2010/413/CFSP inapplicable to the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the applicant are essentially identical or similar to those advanced in Case T-4/11 Export Development Bank of Iran v Council.


title: Case T-2/04: Action brought on 2 January 2004 by Cemender Korkmaz, The Corner House and the Kurdish Human Rights Project against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 71/32                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           20.3.2004
European Communities on 31 December 2003 by SIC-                           into account, as investment costs, sums relating to the
Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A, established in                 acquisition of assets when the auditors confirmed that there
Carnaxide (Portugal), represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz,                 was not even any evidence that the assets actually existed.
Eduardo Maia Cadete and Margarida Rosado da Fonseca,
lawyers, with an address for service at Rua Castilho, 75, 1o,
1250-068, Lisbon (Portugal).                                               The applicant argues that the fact that certain measures were
                                                                           found not to constitute State aid within the meaning of
                                                                           Article 87(1) EC amounted to an error of law. Those measures
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                included the exemption from paying fees and emoluments,
                                                                           postponement of the payment of fees for the use of the
annul the decision of the European Communities C(2003)                     television broadcasting network and a bond issue.
3526 (final) of 15 October 2003 on ad-hoc measures applied
to RTP by Portugal.
                                                                           The applicant also claims that the decision errs in law as
                                                                           regards the application of Article 86(2) EC, given that the
                                                                           Portuguese Government did not award public service television
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            broadcasting to RTP on the basis of a transparent and non-
                                                                           discriminatory procedure.
1.    Breach of the duty to act diligently and impartially;
                                                                           Furthermore, the Commission did not observe the criteria for
2.    Errors of fact;                                                      applying Article 86(2), which it laid down itself in the
                                                                           ‘Communication on the application of State aid rules to public
3.    No basis for the finding in the contested decision on                service broadcasting’. The applicant also maintains that, as
      ‘investment costs’;                                                  regards the supply by RTP of a public service, the Commission’s
                                                                           decision is not founded on any documentary evidence as to
4.    Error of law concerning the failure to classify certain              whether RTP actually fulfilled the public-service obligations
      measures as State aid;                                               laid upon it by the State, since, in practice, the facts of the case
                                                                           suggest that, as regards the relevant period, the service which
5.    Error of law as to the conditions for the application of             RTP was contractually bound to provide was not properly
      Article 86(2) EC.                                                    supplied.
As regards the breach of the duty of diligence, the applicant
maintains that the contested decision represented the final
stage in the Commission’s failure to act transparently, impar-
tially and diligently in the way it conducted the procedure
culminating in the adoption of the decision, which was
conducted throughout with a view to justifying the unjustifia-
ble and omitting facts essential for the purpose of an accurate            Action brought on 2 January 2004 by Cemender Kork-
analysis of the way in which RTP ‘fulfilled’ its public service            maz, The Corner House and the Kurdish Human Rights
obligations. It submits that the Commission did not act                    Project against the Commission of the European Com-
neutrally and failed to maintain an equal distance between the                                          munities
interests in play, since it did not thoroughly weigh up the
legally protected interests prior to taking action.
                                                                                (Case T-2/04)
In relation to the errors of fact, the applicant maintains, in
particular, that no regard was had to the additional assistance                                    (2004/C 71/60)
granted by the State to the public operator in 1998, whilst
sums which had not been verified by independent auditors
were taken into account as ‘investment costs’. In the applicant’s                            (Language of the case: English)
submission, the Commission also failed to check that RTP had
actually fulfilled its public service obligations.
The applicant claims that there is no basis for taking the                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
‘investment costs’ into account in the contested decision, since           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
the Commission fails to state the reasons why it took the                  European Communities on 2 January 2004 by Cemender
relevant sums into account in its final decision and why it,               Korkmaz, Flers, (France), The Corner House, Newton, (United
inconsistently, did not take into account the sums in RTP’s                Kingdom), and the Kurdish Human Rights Project, London,
‘Reports on the Public Service’ but those in RTP’s financial               (United Kingdom), represented by P. Moser, Barrister, and
accounts. It also fails to explain why it was possible to take             A. Stock, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.3.2004              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 71/33
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Turkey, while on the other hand, the applicants claim that the
                                                                        Commission failed to act by not defining its position and not
                                                                        making a recommendation to the Council regarding the pre-
—     grant an order to declare void the relevant finding in the        accession funding for Turkey. According to the applicants, the
      said Commission Report of 5 November 2003;                        Commission has failed in its duty to make a proposal to the
                                                                        Council under Article 4 of Regulation 390/2001 (1). According
                                                                        to the applicants, the Commission should have made such a
—     grant a declaration that the Commission has failed to act,        proposal because Turkey failed to make the requisite progress
      contrary to the EC Treaty;                                        towards fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria and failed to
                                                                        move towards the acquis, which, under Article 5 of Regulation
                                                                        2500/2001 (2), are essential preconditions for continuing to
—     grant an order that the Commission do propose to the              grant pre-accession funding.
      Council the freezing of pre-accession assistance pending
      a resolution of Turkey’s failures to comply with the EU
      accession criteria identified by the Commission;
—     grant an order that the Commission do act to address the          The applicants also claim in this respect that Turkey failed to
      Turkish breaches of accession conditions trough the               move towards the entire framework of Community secondary
      institutions of the EU-Turkey Association Agreement;              legislation and in particular the reinforcement of administrative
                                                                        and judicial capacity and the Environmental Impact Assess-
                                                                        ment Directive (3), which are also essential preconditions for
—     grant an order that the Commission recommend to the               continuing to grant pre-accession funding under annex 4 of
      Council the declaration of a moratorium on further                decision 2001/235 (4).
      accession negotiations with Turkey pending the resol-
      ution of the breaches of accession conditions by Turkey;
—     order the Commission to bear the applicants’ costs of this
      application.                                                      The applicants furthermore claim that the Commission, by
                                                                        failing to make the requested proposal, has failed in its duty to
                                                                        interpret the Community legislation consistently with the rules
                                                                        of international law and in particular in relation to the
                                                                        European Union’s obligation under Article 8 of the UN
                                                                        Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The background to the case is the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline          Finally, the applicants claim that the Commission has failed to
Project Agreements entered into between Turkey and the                  give reasons for its action and its inaction.
Pipeline project companies. The applicants state that under
these agreements the Turkish Parliament has created a ‘prevail-
ing legal regime’ governing the territory and implementation
of the Pipeline project and abrogating national laws to the
benefit of the oil companies concerned. According to the                (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 390/2001 of 26 February 2001 on
applicants, this has caused access to justice and the right to              assistance to Turkey in the framework of the pre-accession
land to be limited, the Copenhagen criteria of human rights,                strategy, and in particular on the establishment of an Accession
                                                                            Partnership (OJ L 58, p. 1).
the rule of law and the protection of minorities to be weakened
                                                                        (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2500/2001 of 17 December 2001
and Turkey to move away from the acquis communautaire,                      concerning pre-accession financial assistance for Turkey and
including the impossibility of adopting the principle of                    amending Regulations (EEC) No 3906/89, (EC) No 1267/1999,
supremacy of EC Law and a breach of the environmental                       (EC) No 1268/1999 and (EC) No 555/2000 (OJ L 342, p. 1).
impact assessment criteria.                                             (3) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment
                                                                            of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
                                                                            environment (OJ L 175, p. 40).
                                                                        (4) 2001/235/EC: Council Decision of 8 March 2001 on the prin-
                                                                            ciples, priorities, intermediate objectives and conditions contained
Therefore, the applicants have requested the Commission take                in the Accession Partnership with the Republic of Turkey (OJ
action to freeze the pre-accession assistance to Turkey and to              L 85, p. 13).
act through the mechanisms of the EU-Turkey Association
agreement. In the present action, the applicants ask on the one
hand for the annulment of the Commission’s ‘2003 Regular
Report on Turkey’s progress towards accession’ insofar as it
includes a negative decision refusing to make a recommen-
dation to the Council regarding the pre-accession funding for


title: Case T-361/16: Action brought on 4 July 2016 — TBWA\London v EUIPO (MEDIA ARTS LAB)

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/31

         Action brought on 4 July 2016 — TBWA\London v EUIPO (MEDIA ARTS LAB)
   (Case T-361/16)
   (2016/C 314/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: TBWA\London Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MEDIA ARTS LAB’ — Application for registration No 13 238 308

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 April 2016 in Case R 958/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for was descriptive and lacked distinctive character for those goods and services for which it was held to be descriptive and lacking in distinctive character;

               —

               allow the EU trade mark application number 13 238 308 to proceed to publication; and

               —

               order the Office to bear its own costs and pay the Applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               The Office has not taken proper account of the services for which the Application has been made;

               —

               The Office has not properly considered the mark applied for as a whole. Rather, it has broken the mark down into parts using definitions of MEDIA ARTS and MEDIA LAB and stated that these parts are descriptive. It has not addressed the effect of the mark as a whole;

               —

               The Office has failed to accept that the mark is considerably more impenetrable than the PIPELINE decision that they rely upon;

               —

               Despite (and in breach of) the principle of equality of treatment, the Office has not followed its previous practice of accepting marks with the word MEDIA for advertising in combination with other ‘unusual’ locations.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 December 2000 in Case C-94/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria)): ARGE Gewässerschutz v Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft (Public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Procedure for the award of public procurement contracts — Equal treatment of tenderers — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Freedom to provide services)

text:
7.4.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 108/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             other, unsubsidised, tenderers, to take part in a procedure for
                                                                                the award of a public service contract does not amount to a
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                          breach of the principle of equal treatment laid down in Council
                                                                                Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
                       of 7 December 2000                                          coordination of procedures for the award of public service
                                                                                contracts.
in Case C-94/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                     2.    The mere fact that a contracting authority allows such bodies to
the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria)): ARGE Gewässerschutz                               take part in a procedure for the award of a public service
  v Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft (1)                            contract does not constitute either covert discrimination or a
                                                                                restriction contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
(Public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Pro-                             amendment, Article 49 EC).
cedure for the award of public procurement contracts —
Equal treatment of tenderers — Discrimination on grounds
                                                                             (1) OJ C 160, 5.6.1999.
         of nationality — Freedom to provide services)
                          (2001/C 108/01)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                               of 20 October 2000
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Case C-242/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
In Case C-94/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                 the Sozialgericht Augsburg): Johann Vogler v Landwirt-
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesverga-                                    schaftliche Alterskasse Schwaben (1)
beamt (Federal Procurement Office), Austria for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Social security
ARGE Gewässerschutz and Bundesministerium für Land- und                      — Freedom of establishment — Determination of the
Forstwirtschaft — on the interpretation of Council Directive                 applicable legislation — Self-employed activities in more
92/50/EC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of                     than one Member State — Articles 13(1) and 14a(2) of
procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992                Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Legislation of only one
L 209, p. 1), and of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after                                      Member State applicable)
amendment, Article 49 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the                                                  (2001/C 108/02)
Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the                                    (Language of the case: German)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December 2000, in
which it has ruled:
                                                                             (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
1.    The mere fact that the contracting authority allows bodies                                 in the European Court Reports)
      receiving subsidies of any kind, whether from that contracting
      authority or from other authorities, which enable them to              In Case C-242/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
      submit tenders at prices appreciably lower than those of the           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Sozialgericht


title: Case T-469/09: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2012 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenses excluded from Community financing — Tomato processing and rice storage sectors — Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2012 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-469/09) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenses excluded from Community financing - Tomato processing and rice storage sectors - Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes - Principle of proportionality)
   2012/C 80/25
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I.K. Chalkias and S. Papaïoannou, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and A. Markoulli, Agents)

      Re:

   Application of annulment of Commission Decision 2009/721/EC of 24 September 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2009 L 257, p. 28).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Toulouse Police Court by order of that court of 4 April 1995 in the case of Ministère Public v. Jean-Louis Maurin (Case C-144/95)

text:
No C 208/2              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12 . 8 . 95
Under Community case-law, the applicant associations                          seed , colza seed and sunflower seed for the 1994/95
were individually concerned by the contested decision, since                  marketing year (*);
the capacity to negotiate in Community matters in relation
to a given policy constitutes sufficient capacity for an                ( b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
association representing a category of persons to challenge a
Community decision which is not addressed to it
individually but which concerns that policy.                            Contentions       and principal      arguments     adduced       in
                                                                        support:
I 1 ) OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 , p . 8 .
                                                                        — As regards the reduction by 20 % of the amount of the
                                                                            compensatory payment to be made to the Portuguese
                                                                             producers of sunflower seeds (Annex I, II ( 2 ) of the
                                                                            contested Regulation ): miscalculation of the overshoot
                                                                             of the maximum guaranteed area ( MGA ) by the
                                                                             Portuguese producers of sunflower seeds:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Toulouse Police
Court by order of that court of 4 April 1995 in the case of                 — The reduction of the basic EC-12 area resulting from
            Ministere Public v. Jean-Louis Maurin                                set-aside was not applicable to the Portuguese
                         ( Case C-144/95 )                                       producers who, in the 1994/95 marketing year,
                            ( 95/C 208/03 )                                      qualified for different treatment, as prescribed by the
                                                                                Act of Accession . Thus, the overshoot by the
                                                                                Portuguese producers of the MGA for the growing of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           sunflower seeds should have been determined by the
European Communities by an order of the Toulouse Police                          Commission by reference to the MGA of 122 000
Court of 4 April 1995 , which was lodged at the Court                            hectares and not by the method adopted by the
Registry on 10 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the                        Commission, namely on the basis of that area subject
case of Ministere Public ( Public Prosecutor's Office ) v.                       to a deduction of 15 % in respect of set-aside .
Jean-Louis Maurin on the following question :
                                                                             — In any event, the Commission miscalculated the area
Is the procedure for establishing whether an offence has                         on which, in that marketing year, the Portuguese
been committed , as laid down by the Law of 1 August 1905                        producers could grow sunflowers without being
on frauds and falsifications relating to products or services                    penalized . Under the Blair House Agreement, which
concerning the labelling and presentation of food products,                      was transposed into Community legislation, the area
and, more particularly, the fact that a report is not signed by                  within the Community territory sown by small
the person concerned by an investigation, compatible with                        producers cannot be taken into account by the
 the general principles of law elicited by the Court of Justice,                 Commission in calculating the overshoot of the
such as observance of the rights of the defence and of the                       National Reference Areas : account should be taken
adversarial nature of proceedings ?                                              only of the area cultivated by producers operating
                                                                                under the general regime ('professional' producers ).
                                                                                Since the Portuguese 'professional ' producers
                                                                                cultivated 103 875 hectares rather than the 103 700
                                                                                hectares ( 122 000 less 15 % in respect of set-aside )
                                                                                which could be cultivated without penalty, there was
                                                                                practically no overshoot of the MGA.
 Action brought on 12 May 1995 by the Portuguese Republic
              against the European Commission
                                                                             — Even if the Commission had grounds for not
                          ( Case C-l 50/95 )
                                                                                excluding the areas sown by small producers from
                             ( 95/C 208/04 )                                     the calculation of the overshoot of the MGA
                                                                                attributed to Portugal in respect of the cultivation of
                                                                                sunflowers, it was incumbent on the Commission to
 An action against the European Commission was brought                           deduct from the MGA an area of 21 397 hectares,
 before the Court of Justice on 12 May 1995 by the
                                                                                that is to say the area actually farmed by small
 Portuguese Republic, represented by Dr Joao de Mota                             producers exempted from the set-aside requirement,
 Campos and Dr Luis Ines Fernandes, acting as agents, with                       in order to determine such area as might be subject to
 an address for service in Luxembourg at the Portuguese                          set-aside . Thus, the maximum level of the penalty to
 Embassy, 33 Allee Scheffer.
                                                                                which the Portuguese producers could as a whole
                                                                                have been liable is 17% rather than the 20%
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                                    calculated by the Commission.
 (a ) declare null and void Commission Regulation (EC )                      — The applicant expressly alleges that the provisions of
       No 307/95 establishing corrected final regional                            Council Regulations (EEC ) No 1765/92 ( 2 ) and
       reference amounts for producers of soya beans, rape                        (EEC ) No 232/94 ( 3 ) are illegal for breach of the


title: Case T-628/11: Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Biogas Nord v Commission

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/27

         Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Biogas Nord v Commission
   (Case T-628/11)
   2012/C 49/49
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Biogas Nord AG (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: C. Birkemeyer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/2010 (ex CP 250/2009 and NN 5/2010) implemented by Germany ‘KStG, Sanierungsklausel’ (‘Law on corporate tax, provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty’) (document C(2011) 275) pursuant to Article 264 TFEU;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: compliance with the private creditor principle
               In the context of the first plea, the applicant submits that Paragraph 8c(1a) of the German Körperschaftsteuergesetz (KStG) (Law on corporation tax) is not aid within the meaning of Article 107 et seq. TFEU because the beneficiary undertakings provide consideration of equal value in return which bears comparison with the conduct of a private creditor in a market economy.

               2.

               Second plea in law: no selectivity
               The applicant submits in that regard that Paragraph 8c(1a) of the KStG is not aid within the meaning of Article 107 et seq. TFEU because that provision does not have the effect of selectively favouring certain undertakings.

               3.

               Third plea in law: protection of legitimate expectations
               In the context of the third plea, the applicant submits that the legitimate expectations of undertakings which have made arrangements regarding assets before they know about a procedure initiated by the Commission under Article 108(2) TFEU enjoy protection.


title: Action brought on 25 February 1998 by André Hecq against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-35/98)

text:
11.4.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 113/19
Ð have exceeded the limits of their discretion in the                Action brought on 23 February 1998 by Republica SA
    determination of the normal value by using, pursuant                      against the Council of the European Union
    to Article 3(4), third subparagraph, of the Basic                                        (Case T-34/98)
    Regulation, the 20 % rule to determine whether sales
    below costs are made in substantial quantities,                                           (98/C 113/46)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Ð have infringed Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation
    and committed a manifest error of appraisal with                 An action against the Council of the European Union was
    respect to the calculation of the dumping margin,                brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
    inasmuch as                                                      Communities on 23 February 1998 by Republica SA,
                                                                     represented by Alfred L. Merckx, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Duro & Lorang,
    Ð no explanation has been given as to why a                      4, boulevard Royal.
         comparison of the weighted average normal value
         with the prices of all individual export transactions
         reflects the full degree of dumping better than the         The applicant claims that the Court should:
         normal methods,
                                                                     Ð annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/
                                                                         97 in so far as it concerns the applicant,
    Ð the dumping determination is based on factors
         falling outside the investigation period,
                                                                     Ð annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/
                                                                         97 in so far as it concerns the applicant, and
    Ð the existence of a pattern of export prices differing
         according to the various purchasers, regions or             Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
         time-periods has not been demonstrated,
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð have committed manifest errors of appraisal in the
    determination of injury and failed to demonstrate                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
    in accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the                   those relied on in Case T-33/98 Petrotub v. Council.
    Basic Regulation that material injury suffered by
    Community industry is caused by the imports from the
    countries subject to the investigation,
Ð have failed, in breach of Article 20(2) of the Basic               Action brought on 25 February 1998 by AndreÂ Hecq
    Regulation and the fundamental right to be heard, to               against the Commission of the European Communities
    give final disclosure on the considerations relating to                                  (Case T-35/98)
    the Community interest.
                                                                                (98/C 113/47)
The applicant finally submits that the conditions imposed                           (Language of the case: French)
by the Community institutions for imports to be exempted
from the anti-dumping duties in accordance with Article 2            An action against the Commission of the European
of the contested Regulation constitute an infringement of            Communities was brought before the Court of First
Articles 8(1) of the Basic Regulation and of the 1994                Instance of the European Communities on 25 February
GATT Anti-dumping Agreement, Article 34(2) and (3) of                1998 by AndreÂ Hecq, residing in Bonlez (Belgium), both
the Association Agreement with Romania, the conclusions              in his own name and that of the UIECS, represented by
of the Essen European Council laying down the                        Lucas Vogel of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
foundations for the pre-accession strategy for the                   service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christian
associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and              Kremer, 8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt.
Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty. In relation to the last
point, it is contended that by requiring the applicant to set
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
its prices in line with the European producers, the
Community institutions have forced the applicant into a
parallel pricing behaviour in contravention of the                   Ð annul the decision of 17 November 1997, notified to
European competition rules.                                              the applicant on 24 November 1997, rejecting the
                                                                         applicant's complaint against the decision of 20 March
                                                                         1997, adopted in response to the applicant's request
(1) OJ L 322, 25.11.1997, p. 1.                                          pursuant to Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                         refusing to take the measures necessary to ensure
                                                                         collective and proportional representation in the
                                                                         membership of the Bureau of the local Staff
 ---pagebreak--- C 113/20             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11.4.98
    Committee in Brussels, inter alia, by calling a new             Action brought on 2 March 1998 by the Foreign Trade
    constituent meeting of that committee,                          Association (FTA), HypermarcheÂ Auchan SA, Karstadt
                                                                    Aktiengesellschaft, Kaufhof Warenhaus AG, La Blanche
                                                                    Porte, Otto Versand GmbH & Co., Quelle Schickedanz
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                             AG & Co. and Textilimportörerna against the Council of
                                                                                the European Union
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                         (Case T-37/98)
                                                                                (98/C 113/48)
The applicant, both in his own name and that of the
UIECS, challenges the refusal of the Administration to                              (Language of the case: English)
intervene in the membership of the Bureau of the local
section of the Staff Committee in Brussels. He explains             An action against the Council of the European Union was
that, following the election, in February 1997, of the              brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
members of the local Staff Committee in Brussels, that              Communities on 2 March 1998 by the Foreign Trade
committee held a constituent meeting to appoint the                 Association (FTA), HypermarcheÂ Auchan SA, Karstadt
members of its Bureau. Rather than distributing the seats           Aktiengesellschaft, Kaufhof Warenhaus AG, La Blanche
on the Bureau fairly in proportion with the electoral               Porte, Otto Versand GmbH & Co., Quelle Schickedanz
results, three trade union and staff associations took all          AG & Co. and Textilimportörerna, all represented by
the seats on the pretext of the slim majority which those           Ursula Schliessner, with an address for service in
three organisations had in the local committee in Brussels.         Luxembourg at the Offices of Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð
All other trade union and staff associations were left out          10, rue Mathias Hardt.
of the Bureau. The present proceedings are brought
following rejection of the request for intervention by the
appointing authority to put the situation right.                    The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð declare Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 to be
In support of his claims, the applicant argues that the                  illegal and void,
contested decison breaches
                                                                    Ð take such other steps as justice may require, and
Ð Article 2(1) of the Staff Regulations and the decision
    of the Commission concerning the exercise of the                Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the
    powers conferred on the appointing authority by the                  applicants in the present proceedings.
    Staff Regulations, published in Administrative notices'
    No 498 of 7 April 1986, in that the contested decision
    was signed by the member of the Commission                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    responsible for personnel and administration, whereas
    only the Commission as a whole or the Director-                 By the contested Regulation a definitive anti-dumping
    General of Personnel and Administration had the                 duty has been imposed on imports of bed-linen of cotton
    authority to sign it,                                           fibres, pure or mixed with man-made fibres or flax
                                                                    bleached, dyed or printed originating in India, Pakistan
                                                                    and Egypt.
Ð Articles 9, 10, 11 and 14 of the Rules laying down
    the composition and operation of the Staff Committee'
    adopted by the Commission on 25 April 1988, and                 The applicants other than the Foreign Trade Association
    Articles 7 and 32 of the Internal Rules of the local            (FTA) are the largest European importers and retailers of
    Staff Committee in Brussels, in that the Commission             bed-linen products. Each is a member of the applicant
    decided that it need not intervene to ensure collective        Foreign Trade Association (FTA), which is an association
    responsibility' and proportional' representation in the        of European importer and retail interests principally in the
    membership of the Bureau of the local Staff                     textile and consumer products sector. Also included
    Committee in Brussels, following the elections at issue.        among the FTA's members are national importer
                                                                    associations.
The applicant argues further that it is unacceptable, under         The applicants plead an infringement of Article 1(4) of the
the provisions mentioned, for certain elected members of            Basic Regulation, Regulation (EC) No 384/94, arguing
the local Staff Committee to take up all the seats on the           that the Commission abused its discretion regarding the
Bureau on the basis of a slim majority of votes. Moreover,          like product' detemination when, in rejecting the
such an attitude runs counter to the general principle in           applicants' submissions in that regard, it did not justify
Article 9(3) of the Staff Regulations, the underlying aim of        this by reference, at the very least, to the standard of the
which is to allow the joint expression of all political             objective evidence or explanation submitted by the
positions found among the staff in such a way that a                applicants.
majority does not oppress a minority and thus deprive it
of genuine and effective representation.
                                                                    Furthermore, the applicants submit that the Council has
                                                                    committed a manifest error of assessment of the
                                                                    Community interest within the meaning of Article 21 of


title: Action brought on 6 May 1997 by Patricia Brunko-Metzger and others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-154/97)

text:
No C 228/20             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 26 . 7 . 97
Action brought on 5 May 1997 by Siegfried Schweikle                      Licata, residing in Brussels, Alberto Piazzi, residing at
   against the Commission of the European Communities                    Saint Genese ( Belgium ), Cornelis Pot, residing at
                          ( Case T-153/97)                               Roosendaal NC (Netherlands ), Rita Sacca-George,
                                                                         residing in Brussels, Jacques Simon, residing in Brussels,
                             ( 97/C 228/47 )                             and Harry Waterschoot, residing in Brussels, represented
                                                                         by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                (Language of the case: French)                           for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne
                                                                         Korn, 21 Avenue de Nassau .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
Instance of the European Communities on 5 May 1997 by
Siegfried Schweikle, residing at Strassen ( Luxembourg ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an              — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their request
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu                    to be regraded,
ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange .
                                                                         — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  administrative complaint,
— annul the Commission's decision of 3 September 1996                    — order the Commission to pay the costs.
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's                 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                         Case T-16/97 (»).
     decision adopted on 3 February 1997 expressly
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                         (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         Action brought on 9 May 1997 by Achim Berge against
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                          the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-16/97 ( M.
                                                                                ( Case T-156/97 )
(>) OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.                                                                ( 97/C 228/49
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 6 May 1997 by Patricia Brunko                          Communities was brought before the Court of First
Metzger and others against the Commission of the                         Instance of the European Communities on 9 May 1997 by
                      European Communities                               Achim Berge, residing in Freiburg ( Federal Republic of
                                                                          Germany ), represented by Dr Miiller-Heidelberg, Rechts
                           ( Case T-154/97 )                              anwalt, Bingen ( Federal Republic of Germany), with an
                              ( 97/C 228/48 )                             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                          Charles Duro, 4 Boulevard Royal .
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                        — annul the Commission decision rejecting ( impliedly, in
 Instance of the European Communities on 6 May 1997 by                        accordance with Article 2 (4 ), second subpararaph, of
 Patricia Brunko-Metzger, residing in Brussels, Mariette                      Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom ), the applicant's
 Colinet, residing in Brussels, Christiane Degueldre,                         request of 19 December 1996 for access to documents,
 residing at Wemmel ( Belgium ), Nicole Dumont, residing at
 Ath ( Belgium ), Emile Espagnet, residing at Aalst
 ( Belgium ), Paul Fraix, residing at La Bouverie ( Belgium ),            — declare that, pursuant to Article 184 of the EC Treaty,
 Georgios Katalagarianakis, residing at Overijse ( Belgium ),                 the constructive refusal provided for in Article 2 (4 ),
 Danielle Lardinois, residing in Brussels, Carlos Alberto                     second subparagraph, of Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC,
 Leite Mateus, residing at Zaventem ( Belgium ), Liborio                      Euratom is consequently inapplicable,


title: Case C-119/11: Action brought on 4 March 2011 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/16

         Action brought on 4 March 2011 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-119/11)
   2011/C 145/22
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and C. Soulay, agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by applying, since 1 January 2007, a VAT rate of 2,10 % to income from charges for admission to the first performances of concerts held in establishments where refreshments may be obtained during the performance, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 99 and 110 of the VAT Directive; (1)

               —

               order French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the Commission complains that, since 1 January 2007, the defendant has applied a VAT rate of 2,10 % to income from charges for admission to the first performances of concerts held in establishments where refreshments may be obtained during the performance, instead of the earlier rate of 5,5 %.
   The Commission points out that, under Article 110 of the VAT Directive, Member States which, at 1 January 1991, were applying reduced rates of VAT lower than the minimum rate of 5 % may continue to apply those rates. However, Member States are not permitted under that provision to introduce new derogations or extend the scope of the derogations existing as at 1 January 1991 where they have restricted the scope of the derogations after that date. However, that is exactly what occurred in this case, since, as from 1 January 1997, the defendant restricted the scope of the derogation existing as at 1 January 1991 in connection with reduced rates of VAT and expressly excluded from this income relating to first performances generated by the sale of tickets ‘which give access solely to concerts held in establishments where refreshments may be obtained during the performance’. By extending the scope of a derogation from the Directive, the French Republic has therefore disregarded the purpose of the Directive.

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


title: Case T-255/08: Action brought on 16 June 2008 — Eugenia Montero Padilla v OHIM — Padilla Requena (JOSE PADILLA)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/65

         Action brought on 16 June 2008 — Eugenia Montero Padilla v OHIM — Padilla Requena (JOSE PADILLA)
   (Case T-255/08)
   (2008/C 209/115)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Eugenia Montero Padilla (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: G. Aguillaume Gandasegui and P. Linde Puelles, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: José María Padilla Requena
   Form of order sought
   Annul OHIM's decision of 1 March 2008 and order that the application for registration be refused in respect of Community trade mark ‘JOSE PADILLA’ for Classes 9a, 23a and 41a.
   Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Eugenia Montero Padilla

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘JOSE PADILLA’ (registration application No 2.844.066) for goods and services in Classes 9, 25 and 41.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘JOSE PADILLA’ (registration application No 2.844.066) for goods and services in Class 41.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the opposition

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

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Articles 4 and 7(1)(a),(b),(c) and (f) Article 8(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case C-13/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — In the proceedings brought by Erich Stamm, Anneliese Hauser (Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Equal treatment — Self-employed frontier workers — Agricultural lease — Agricultural structure)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/21

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — In the proceedings brought by Erich Stamm, Anneliese Hauser
   (Case C-13/08) (1)

   (Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Equal treatment - Self-employed frontier workers - Agricultural lease - Agricultural structure)
   (2009/C 44/35)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings
   Erich Stamm, Anneliese Hauser

      Interested party: Regierungspräsidium Freiburg
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 12(1), 13(1) and 15(1) of Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999 (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6) — Applicability of the principle of equal treatment to self-employed frontier workers — Farmer with Swiss nationality residing in Switzerland having entered into a lease agreement for land for agricultural use located in Germany.
   Operative part of the judgment
   Pursuant to Article 15(1) of Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, a contracting party must accord to the ‘self employed frontier workers’, within the meaning of Article 13 of that annex, of the other contracting party no less favourable treatment as regards access to self-employed activity and the pursuit thereof in the host State than that which is accorded by that State to its own nationals.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case C-191/08: Action brought on 7 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/27

         Action brought on 7 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-191/08)
   (2008/C 171/41)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and A. Caeiros, agents, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) 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, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 38(1) of Directive 2004/83/EC;

               —

               in the alternative, declare that, by failing, in any event, to inform the Commission of the adoption of such measures, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 38(1) of Directive 2004/83/EC;

               —

               order Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2004/83/EC into national law expired on 10 October 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.


title: Case F-65/12: Action brought on 25 June 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/34

         Action brought on 25 June 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-65/12)
   2012/C 243/60
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Commission not to grant the applicant family allowance in respect of his wife’s son of a previous marriage.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 17 August 2011 to refuse the applicant’s application of 20 July 2011, concerning his wife’s child, for family allowance and the advantages resulting therefrom and annual travel expenses;

               —

               Insofar as it is necessary, annul the decision rejecting his claim of 13 March 2012;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-404/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Quelle AG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände (Consumer protection — Directive 1999/44/EC — Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees — Right of the seller, where goods not in conformity are replaced, to require the consumer to pay compensation for the use of those goods — No charge for the use of the goods not in conformity)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Quelle AG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände
   (Case C-404/06) (1)

   (Consumer protection - Directive 1999/44/EC - Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees - Right of the seller, where goods not in conformity are replaced, to require the consumer to pay compensation for the use of those goods - No charge for the use of the goods not in conformity)
   (2008/C 142/08)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Quelle AG

      Defendant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3 of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12) — Entitlement under national law of a seller to seek compensation from consumers for the use of goods not in conformity with the sale contract during the period before their replacement
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 3 of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a seller who has sold consumer goods which are not in conformity may require the consumer to pay compensation for the use of those defective goods until their replacement with new goods.

      (1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.


title: Case C-281/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), lodged on 13 June 2007 — Bayerische Hypotheken- und Vereinsbank AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), lodged on 13 June 2007 — Bayerische Hypotheken- und Vereinsbank AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-281/07)
   (2007/C 211/31)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bayerische Hypotheken- und Vereinsbank AG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests (1) be applied to a claim for recovery of an export refund wrongly granted to an exporter, even if the latter did not commit an irregularity?

         If this question is to be answered in the affirmative:

               2.

               Must this provision be applied mutatis mutandis to a claim for recovery of such benefits from the party to which the exporter has assigned its claim to the export refund?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.


title: Case T-726/16: Action brought on 13 October 2016 — VFP v Commission

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/33

         Action brought on 13 October 2016 — VFP v Commission
   (Case T-726/16)
   (2016/C 462/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Vlaamse Federatie van Persverkopers VZW (VFP) (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. de Bandt, J. Dewispelaere and J. Probst, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 3 June 2016, State Aid SA.42366 (2016/N) — Belgium — State compensations to bpost for the delivery of public services over 2016-2020 (1);

               —

               refer the case back to the Commission for further investigation and a new decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs; and

               —

               take such other or further actions as justice may require.

      Plea in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one single plea in law alleging that the European Commission has violated its procedural rights by adopting the contested decision and not opening the formal procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU.
   In this single plea it is explained that, in so far as the Commission encountered serious difficulties as regards the possible compatibility of the compensation for the press distribution Service of General Economic Interest (‘SGEI’) with the internal market, it was under the legal obligation to adopt a decision initiating the formal investigation procedure. This single plea is divided in four limbs. In particular, it is argued that the existence of the serious difficulties results from a body of consistent evidence concerning (i) the length of the preliminary examination and the special circumstances under which the aid was granted (first limb), (ii) the fact that the Commission’s analysis of the qualification of the distribution of recognised newspapers and periodicals as an SGEI is insufficient (second limb), (iii) the fact that the Commission’s analysis of the beneficiaries of the press distribution SGEI is incomplete (third limb) and (iv) the fact that the Commission’s analysis of the distortion of competition and the development of trade is incomplete and insufficient (fourth limb).

      (1)  OJ 2016, C 341, p. 5.


title: Case C-68/09 P: Appeal brought on 16 February 2009 by Georgios Karatzoglou against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 2 December 2008 in Case T-471/04 Georgios Karatzoglou v European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/21

         Appeal brought on 16 February 2009 by Georgios Karatzoglou against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 2 December 2008 in Case T-471/04 Georgios Karatzoglou v European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR)
   (Case C-68/09 P)
   (2009/C 82/38)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Georgios Karatzoglou (represented by: S. A. Pappas, dikigoros)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR)
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the appealed decision;

               —

               Cancel the contested decision of the appointing authority;

               —

               Order the Defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant submits that in holding that dismissals of temporary staff do not require reasoning the Court of First Instance disregarded recent case law of the Court of Justice, infringed international law and infringed art. 253 of the EC Treaty, which imposes a general obligation to give reasons.
   The appellant also submits that the CFI was wrong in declaring that he had not presented evidence capable of establishing the existence of a misuse of powers. He also contests the finding of the CFI that there was no breach of the principle of sound administration.


title: Case C-236/14: Action brought on 12 May 2014 — European Commission v Ireland

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/22

         Action brought on 12 May 2014 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-236/14)
   2014/C 212/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, K. Herrmann, L. Armati, agents)

      Defendant: Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that by failing to adopt provisions transposing the definitions laid down in Article 2, letters (f), (h), (m), (n) and (o), and the requirements laid down in Article 3(2) and (4), Article 5, Article 13(1), letters (a) to (e), Article 15(6), letter (e), Article 16(1), (3), (5), (6), (7), second sentence, and (8), Article 17 (1) to (5), Article 17(6) regarding bioliquids, Article 17(8), Article 18(1) and (3) regarding biolquids, Article 18(7), Article 19(1) and (3), Article 21(1), second sentence, and Annexes II to V and VII of Directive 2009/28/EC (1) of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27(1) of that Directive;

               —

               Impose a penalty payment on Ireland pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU in the amount of EUR 25  447,50 per day, with effect from the date of the judgment of the Court and payable to the account of the Union's own resources, for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure; and

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 5 December 2010.

      (1)  OJ L 140, p. 16


title: Case C-432/04: Judgment of the Court (Full Court) of 11 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Edith Cresson (Article 213(2) EC — Article 126(2) EA — Breach of the obligations arising from the office of Member of the Commission — Deprivation of the right to a pension)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/6

         Judgment of the Court (Full Court) of 11 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Edith Cresson
   (Case C-432/04) (1)

   (Article 213(2) EC - Article 126(2) EA - Breach of the obligations arising from the office of Member of the Commission - Deprivation of the right to a pension)
   (2006/C 224/11)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. P. Hartvig and J. Currall, Agents)

      Defendant: Edith Cresson (represented by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and M. Hirsch, avocats)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, C. Jurgensen and G. de Bergues, Agents)
   Re:
   Action under the third subparagraph of Article 231(2) EC and the third subparagraph of Article 126(2) of the Euratom Treaty — Forfeiture of pension rights of a former Commissioner — Breach of the obligations arising from the office of Commissioner
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that Mrs Édith Cresson acted in breach of the obligations arising from her office as a Member of the Commission of the European Communities, for the purposes of Article 213(2) EC and Article 126(2) EA, in relation to the appointment of Mr René Berthelot and as regards the terms under which he worked;

               2.

               As to the remainder, dismisses the action;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities, Mrs Édith Cresson and the French Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case C-79/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 11 February 2010 — Systeme Helmholz GmbH v Hauptzollamt Nüremberg

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 11 February 2010 — Systeme Helmholz GmbH v Hauptzollamt Nüremberg
   (Case C-79/10)
   2010/C 113/35
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Systeme Helmholz GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Nüremberg

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the first sentence of Article 14(1)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC (1) of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity to be interpreted as meaning that the exclusion of private pleasure-flying from the tax advantage signifies that the exemption for energy products supplied for use as fuel for the purpose of air navigation is to be applied only to airlines, or is the exemption to be applied to all fuel used for air navigation, provided that the aircraft is used for the purpose of earning income?

               2.

               Is Article 15(1)(j) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity to be interpreted as meaning that it also pertains to fuel which an aircraft requires for the purposes of flights to and from an aircraft maintenance facility, or does the possibility of obtaining a tax advantage only apply to companies whose actual business purpose is the manufacture, development, testing and maintenance of aircraft?

               3.

               Is Article 11(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity to be interpreted as meaning that, where an aircraft which is used for both private and commercial purposes is used for maintenance or training flights, pursuant to Article 14(1)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity an exemption proportionate to the commercial use should be applied in respect of the fuel used for these flights?

               4.

               If the third question is answered in the negative: may it be concluded from the non-applicability of Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/96/EC for the purposes of Article 14(1)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity that where there is mixed use of an aircraft for private and commercial purposes no exemptions are to be applied to maintenance or training flights?

               5.

               If the third question is answered in the affirmative or if an analogous legal consequence arises from another provision of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity: which criteria and which reference period should be taken as a basis for determining the respective proportion of use, within the meaning of Article 11(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, for maintenance and training flights?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51.


title: Case C-312/10: Order of the President of the Court of 7 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Köln — Germany) — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Melanie Klintz

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/9

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Köln — Germany) — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Melanie Klintz
   (Case C-312/10) (1)

   2011/C 173/19
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


title: Joined Cases T-711/13 and T-716/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 February 2016 — Harrys Pubar and Harry’s New York Bar v OHIM — Harry’s New York Bar and Harrys Pubar (HARRY’S BAR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark HARRY’S BAR — Earlier national figurative mark PUB CASINO Harrys RESTAURANG — Partial refusal of registration — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 February 2016 — Harrys Pubar and Harry’s New York Bar v OHIM — Harry’s New York Bar and Harrys Pubar (HARRY’S BAR)
   (Joined Cases T-711/13 and T-716/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark HARRY’S BAR - Earlier national figurative mark PUB CASINO Harrys RESTAURANG - Partial refusal of registration - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 111/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Harrys Pubar AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer) (Case T-711/13); and Harry’s New York Bar SA (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer) (Case T-716/13)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Harry’s New York Bar SA (Case T-711/13); and Harrys Pubar AB (intervener before the General Court in Case T-716/13)

      Re:

   Two actions brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2013 (joined Cases R 946/2012-1 and R 995/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Harrys Pubar AB and Harry’s New York Bar SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls, in Case T-711/13, points 1 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 October 2013 (joined Cases R 946/2012-1 and R 995/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Harrys Pubar AB and Harry’s New York Bar SA;

               2.

               Dismisses, in Case T-716/13, the action brought by Harry’s New York Bar;

               3.

               Orders Harry’s New York Bar to bear its own costs, to pay half of the costs incurred by Harrys Pubar in the proceedings before the General Court and to pay the costs incurred by Harrys Pubar in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM. OHIM is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Harrys Pubar in the proceedings before the General Court.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


title: Case C-135/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Szatmári Malom Kft v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve (Agriculture — EAFRD — Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — Articles 20, 26 and 28 — Support for the modernisation of agricultural holdings and support for adding value to agricultural and forestry products — Eligibility conditions — Competence of the Member States — Support for the modernisation of existing mill capacity — Mills replaced with a single new mill, with no increase in capacity — Not included — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/9

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Szatmári Malom Kft v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
   (Case C-135/13) (1)

   ((Agriculture - EAFRD - Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Articles 20, 26 and 28 - Support for the modernisation of agricultural holdings and support for adding value to agricultural and forestry products - Eligibility conditions - Competence of the Member States - Support for the modernisation of existing mill capacity - Mills replaced with a single new mill, with no increase in capacity - Not included - Principle of equal treatment))
   2014/C 212/09
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Szatmári Malom Kft

      Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Kúria — Interpretation of Art. 20(b)(iii), and Arts. 26(1)(a) and 28(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1) — Support targeting the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector — Measures aimed at restructuring and developing physical potential and promoting innovation — Creation by a company, whose main activity is the manufacture of flour, of a new mill by pooling production capacity of its three existing mills whose closure is planned — Modernisation of agricultural holdings or adding value to agricultural products

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 26(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of improvement in the overall performance of the agricultural holding, as referred to in that provision, cannot cover an operation whereby an undertaking whose business is the operation of mills closes old mills in order to replace them with a new mill, but with no increase in existing capacity;

               2.

               Articles 20(b)(iii) and 28(1)(a) of Regulation No 1698/2005 must be interpreted as meaning that an operation consisting in the closure of old mills and their replacement with a new mill, but with no increase in existing capacity, may improve the overall performance of the enterprise for the purposes of the latter provision;

               3.

               Article 28(1)(a) of Regulation No 1698/2005 must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, the adoption of national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, introducing support for the adding of value to agricultural products, which, as regards milling undertakings, can be granted only for operations intended to modernise the existing capacity of those mills and not for those involving the creation of new capacity. However, when considering a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which one or more milling facilities are closed in order to be replaced with a new milling facility, but with no increase in existing capacity, it is for the national court to ensure that such legislation is applied in such a way as to ensure observance of the principle of equal treatment.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case T-28/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2011 — Park v OHIM — Bae (PINE TREE) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Figurative Community mark PINE TREE — Genuine use of the mark — Articles 50(1)(a) and 55(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/04 (now Articles 51(1)(a) and 56(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2011 — Park v OHIM — Bae (PINE TREE)
   (Case T-28/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Figurative Community mark PINE TREE - Genuine use of the mark - Articles 50(1)(a) and 55(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/04 (now Articles 51(1)(a) and 56(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 55/37
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mo-Hwa Park (Hillscheid, Germany) (represented by: P. Lee, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Chong-Yun Bae (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A.-K. Warnecke and C. Donle, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2008 (Case R 1882/2007-4) concerning revocation proceedings between Mr Mo-Hwa Park and Mr Chong-Yun Bae.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Mo-Hwa Park to pay the costs..

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


title: Case C-585/12: Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2013 — Shell Petroleum NV, The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd, Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV v European Commission

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/59

         Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2013 — Shell Petroleum NV, The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd, Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV v European Commission
   (Case C-585/12) (1)

   2013/C 225/129
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.


title: Case T-280/11: Judgment of the General Court of 15 May 2012 — Ewald v OHIM — Kin Cosmetics (Keen) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark Keen — Community figurative mark KIN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 May 2012 — Ewald v OHIM — Kin Cosmetics (Keen)
   (Case T-280/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark Keen - Community figurative mark KIN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 194/33
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Rita Ewald (Frauenwald, Germany) (represented by: S. Reinhardt, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Kin Cosmetics, S.A. (Sant Feliu de Guixols, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2011 (Case R 1383/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Kin Cosmetics, S.A. and Ms Rita Ewald

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Ms Rita Ewald to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case T-428/17: Action brought on 11 July 2017 — Alpine Welten Die Bergführer v EUIPO (ALPINEWELTEN Die Bergführer)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/60

         Action brought on 11 July 2017 — Alpine Welten Die Bergführer v EUIPO (ALPINEWELTEN Die Bergführer)
   (Case T-428/17)
   (2017/C 277/85)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Alpine Welten Die Bergführer GmbH & Co. KG (Berghülen, Germany) (represented by: T.-C. Leisenberg)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ALPINEWELTEN Die Bergführer’ – Application for registration No 15 187 826

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 in Case R 1339/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-522/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Sparkasse Allgäu v Finanzamt Kempten (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Article 49 TFEU — Legislation of a Member State requiring credit institutions to notify the tax authorities of deceased customers’ assets for purposes related to the collection of inheritance tax — Application of that legislation to branches established in another Member State in which banking secrecy prohibits, in principle, the disclosure of such information)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/14

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Sparkasse Allgäu v Finanzamt Kempten
      (Case C-522/14) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Legislation of a Member State requiring credit institutions to notify the tax authorities of deceased customers’ assets for purposes related to the collection of inheritance tax - Application of that legislation to branches established in another Member State in which banking secrecy prohibits, in principle, the disclosure of such information))
      (2016/C 211/16)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesfinanzhof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Sparkasse Allgäu

         Defendant: Finanzamt Kempten

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which requires credit institutions having their head office in that Member State to notify the national authorities of assets held or managed at their dependent branches established in another Member State in the event of the death of the owner of those assets who is resident in the first Member State, in the case where there is no similar notification obligation in that second Member State and credit institutions there are subject to banking secrecy breach of which constitutes a criminal offence.

         (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.