title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Bremen by order of that court of 7 October 1997 in the case of Mövenpick Deutschland GmbH für das Gastgewerbe, (formerly 'Deutsche EIG' Einkaufs- und Importgesellschaft für das Gastgewerbe mbH) against Hauptzollamt Bremen (Case C-405/97)

text:
C 41/10               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.2.98
On a proper construction of Article 52 of the EC Treaty            The continued failure by the Portuguese Republic to fulfil
and, as the case may be, Article 92(1), do those provisions        its obligations under the abovementioned Decision entails,
preclude legislation, affecting a territory within an              at the same time, infringement of Article 93(3) of the
autonomous community of a Member State, on urgent                  Treaty, since Portugal continues not to comply with the
fiscal measures to aid investment and stimulate economic           suspensory effect of the aforementioned Decision which is
activity, which may benefit taxable persons who pay tax            intended to prevent the payment of aid incompatible with
exclusively to the tax authorities for that territory or are       the common market and, indirectly, of Article 93(2),
resident there for tax purposes and whose volume of                which provides for the adoption of decisions requiring the
transactions in that autonomous community preceding tax            abolition of incompatible aid.
year exceeds 25 % of their total volume of transactions,
and which does not include among those to whom those
measures apply other natural and legal persons resident in         (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997, p. 14.
the State itself or in another Member State of the
European Community?
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
                                                                   Bremen by order of that court of 7 October 1997 in the
Action brought on 2 December 1997 by the Commission                case of Mövenpick Deutschland GmbH für das
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                 Gastgewerbe, (formerly Deutsche EIG' Einkaufs- und
                           Republic                                Importgesellschaft für das Gastgewerbe mbH) against
                       (Case C-404/97)                                                 Hauptzollamt Bremen
                         (98/C 41/18)                                                     (Case C-405/97)
                                                                                (98/C 41/19)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 2 December 1997 by the Commission of the European               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Communities, represented by Dimitris Triantafyllou and             European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht
Ana Maria Alves Vieira, of its Legal Service, acting as            (Finance Court), Bremen of 7 October 1997, received at
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the           the Court Registry on 3 December 1997, for a preliminary
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,           ruling in the case of Mövenpick Deutschland GmbH
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                          für das Gastgewerbe, (formerly Deutsche EIG' Einkaufs-
                                                                   und Importgesellschaft für das Gastgewerbe mbH) v.
                                                                   Hauptzollamt Bremen on the following questions:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   1. Is the Common Customs Tariff in the version
1. declare that, by failing to abolish and recover, within              contained in Annex I to Commission Regulation
    the prescribed period, the aid from which EPAC                      (EEC) No 2551/93 of 10 August 1993 (OJ L 241,
    (Empresa para a AgroalimentacËaÄo e Cereais, SA)                    27.9.1993, p. 1) amending Annex I to Council
    unduly benefited, the Portuguese Republic has failed                Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and
    to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and, in               statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs
    particular, under Commission Decision C(97) 2130 of                 Tariff (Combined Nomenclature 1994) to be
    9 July 1997;                                                        interpreted so that dried walnut pieces imported from
                                                                        a non-member country, which were stored deep-frozen
                                                                        in a customs warehouse in the Community and
2. order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                      subsequently presented for admission to free
                                                                        circulation in a thawed condition, are to be classified
                                                                        under heading No 0802?
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   2. If not:
Under Articles 189 and 191 of the EC Treaty, the
abovementioned Commission Decision should have been
implemented by the Portuguese Republic, even if it did
have doubts concerning its legality. In Case C-330/97 (1)               Was Article 522(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
the Portuguese Republic did not claim that it was                       No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993,
absolutely impossible to implement the Decision, given                  p. 1), which has since been replaced by the new
that the fact that the undertaking was being wound up                   version of Article 522 introduced by Commission
(which as not relied upon in that respect) did not in any               Regulation (EEC) No 3254/94 of 19 December 1994
event constitute an insurmountable difficulty.                          (OJ L 346, 31.12.1994, p. 1), inoperative?
 ---pagebreak--- 7.2.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 41/11
3. If so:                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
                                                                   Gerichtshof by order of that court of 22 October 1997 in
                                                                   the case of Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der Tiroler
    Should Article 522 in conjunction with Article 526(4)          Landesregierung v. (1) Adolf Sparber, (2) Atelier Delta
    of the Provisions implementing the Community                   Entwurf- und Planungsgesellschaft mbH in liquidation, (3)
    Customs Code, in the versions enacted by Article 1,            Hans-Eberhard Junkersdorf and (4) Maria-Margareta
    points 16 and 18, of Commission Regulation (EC)                                          Junkersdorf
    No 3254/94 of 19 December 1994 (OJ L 346,
    31.12.1994, p. 1), also be applied to customs                                         (Case C-407/97)
    declarations before 7 January 1995?                                                     (98/C 41/21)
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities by an order of the Oberster
                                                                   Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Austria, of 22 October
                                                                   1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
Action brought on 4 December 1997 by the Commission                5 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of             Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung
                         Luxembourg                                v. (1) Adolf Sparber, (2) Atelier Delta Entwurf- und
                       (Case C-406/97)                             Planungsgesellschaft mbH in liquidation, (3) Hans-
                                                                   Eberhard      Junkersdorf      and   (4)  Maria-Margareta
                         (98/C 41/20)                              Junkersdorf on the following question:
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                Is Article 70 of the Act concerning the conditions of
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of
Communities on 4 December 1997 by the Commission of                Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments
the European Communities, represented by Michel Nolin,             to the Treaties on which the European Union is
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for         founded (1), which provides that notwithstanding the
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la          obligations under the treaties on which the European
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.              Union is founded the Republic of Austria may maintain its
                                                                   existing legislation regarding secondary residences for five
                                                                   years from the date of accession (1 January 1995), to be
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        interpreted as meaning that the transitional provisions
                                                                   in paragraph 40(2) and (5) of the Tiroler
                                                                   Grundverkehrsgesetz 1996 (Landesgesetzblatt für Tirol
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force           No 61/1996), which entered into force on 1 October
    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or          1996, fall within the definition of existing legislation, or
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with             are those provisions to be regarded as new legislation
    Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the             if, as a result of decisions of the Austrian
    return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the         Verfassungsgerichtshof, the provisions of previous Tyrol
    territory of a Member State (1), or by failing to inform       laws on the sale of land were not applicable in the present
    the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of                     case?
    Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
    that Directive,
                                                                   (1) OJ C 241, 29.8.1994, p. 1.
Ð order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
    costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   Action brought on 5 December 1997 by the Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                                         Luxembourg
paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty requires
                                                                                (Case C-409/97)
Member States to adopt the measures necessary to
transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic                                  (98/C 41/22)
law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing
so. In the present case, that period expired on
15 December 1993 without the Grand Duchy of                        An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
provisions.                                                        Communities on 5 December 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                   the European Communities, represented by Marie
                                                                   Wolfcarius, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
(1) OJ L 74, 27.3.1993, p. 74.
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                   Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                   Kirchberg.


title: Case C-430/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Tolley (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Care component of disability living allowance — Person insured against the risk of old age who has definitively ceased all occupational activity — Concepts of ‘sickness benefit’ and ‘invalidity benefit’ — Exportability)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/17

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Tolley
   (Case C-430/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Care component of disability living allowance - Person insured against the risk of old age who has definitively ceased all occupational activity - Concepts of ‘sickness benefit’ and ‘invalidity benefit’ - Exportability))
   (2017/C 104/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

      Defendant: Tolley

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A benefit such as the care component of disability living allowance is a sickness benefit for the purposes of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999.

               2.

               Article 13(2)(f) of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 307/1999, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a person has acquired rights to an old-age pension by virtue of the contributions paid during a given period to the social security scheme of a Member State does not preclude the legislation of that Member State from subsequently ceasing to be applicable to that person. It is for the national court to determine, in the light of the circumstances of the case before it and of the provisions of the applicable national law, when that legislation ceased to be applicable to that person.

               3.

               Article 22(1)(b) of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 307/1999, must be interpreted as preventing legislation of the competent State from making entitlement to an allowance such as that at issue in the main proceedings subject to a condition as to residence and presence on the territory of that Member State.
               Article 22(1)(b) and Article 22(2) of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 307/1999, must be interpreted as meaning that a person in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings retains the right to receive the benefits referred to in Article 22(1)(b) after transferring his residence to a Member State other than the competent State, provided that he has obtained authorisation for that purpose.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Action brought on 23 April 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-155/97)

text:
14 . 6 . 97               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 181 /9
       Spain during the calculation period preceding                       reasoned opinion, the Commission has decided to bring
       materialization of the risk provided for on a general               the matter before the Court .
       basis by Spanish legislation ?
                                                                           (') OJ No L 216 , 12 . 9 . 1995 , p . 8 .
H OJ No L 149 , 5 . 7. 1971 , p . 2 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 136 , 19 . 5 . 1992 , p. 7.
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingborgs
                                                                           Tingsratt by order of that court of 28 April 1997 in the
Action brought on 23 April 1997 by the Commission of                       case of Public Prosecutor v. Gunnar Nilsson, Per Olov
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                                              Hagelgren and Solweig Arrborn
                                 Belgium                                                             ( Case C-162/97 )
                             Case C-155/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 / 17 )
                             ( 97/C 181 / 16 )
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                       European Communities by an order of the Helsingborgs
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                    Tingsratt ( District Court, Helsingborg ) of 28 April 1997,
on 23 April 1997 by the Commission of the European                         which was received at the Court Registry on 30 April
Communities, represented by Wouter Wils, of its Legal                      1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Public
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                   Prosecutor v. Gunnar Nilsson, Per Olov Hagelgren and
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                       Solweig Arrborn on the following questions :
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                           1 . Do Article 30 of the EC Treaty and Directive 87/328/
The Commission of the European Communities claims                               EEC (') allow a national authority to scrutinize, for
that the Court should :
                                                                                authorization purposes, insemination operations using
                                                                                cattle sperm, that is to say the gathering of sperm,
— declare that,                                                                 handling and distribution of sperm and insemination ,
                                                                                in the way indicated above ?
      — by failing to bring to an end the infringement
           described    in Article      1  of the  abovementioned          2 . Do Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome and Directive 87/
           decision within the prescribed period, and                           328/EEC allow a Member State to prohibit, or lay
                                                                                down conditions for, insemination and breeding of
                                                                                cattle :
      — in the alternative, in any event, by failing to
           inform the Commission within the prescribed
           period of the measures adopted to that end,                          ( a ) for a purpose which, according to a national
                                                                                authority, can entail suffering for animals or affect
                                                                                their natural behaviour ?
      the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under Article 2 of the Commission's
       decision of 28 June 1995 (') relating to a proceeding                    ( b ) using a certain breed which is regarded by a
       pursuant to Article 90 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty;                                 national authority as having genetic defects ?
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                          3 . ( a ) Does interpretation of the preamble to Directive
                                                                                87/328/EEC allow national exceptions from
                                                                                approval for artificial insemination in its territory
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                   as far as concerns animals with an undesirable
                                                                                pedigree — even where those exceptions entail a
                                                                                prohibition in relation to animals which fulfil the
The Commission's decision of 28 June 1995 referred to in                              requirements laid down in Article 2 of the
the applicant's submissions requires the Kingdom of                                   Directive ?
Belgium to take the measures necessary to bring to an end
the system of discounts on landing fees at Brussels
National Airport ( Zaventem ) which infringes Article 90                        ( b ) If so, can the individual Member State be left to
( 1 ) of the Treaty, read in conjunction with Article 86                              define 'impairment of the pedigree' and 'hereditary
thereof.                                                                              defects '?
                                                                           (') OJ No L 167, 26 . 6 . 1987, p . 54 .
Since it has received no information from the Belgian
Government regarding the adoption of measures bringing
the infringement to an end within the time-limit set by the


title: Case C-574/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 11 December 2014  — PGE Górnictwo i Energetyka Konwencjonalna SA v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 11 December 2014 — PGE Górnictwo i Energetyka Konwencjonalna SA v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki
   (Case C-574/14)
   (2015/C 089/03)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: PGE Górnictwo i Energetyka Konwencjonalna SA

      Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 107 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU and Article 4(2) of the Decision of the European Commission of 25 September 2007 (1), to be interpreted as meaning that, where the European Commission classifies State aid as being compatible with the common market, the national court is not entitled to review whether the domestic provisions which have been deemed to constitute permitted State aid are consistent with the assumptions made in the Commission Communication relating to the methodology for analysing State aid linked to stranded costs (‘the Stranded Costs Methodology’)?

               2.

               Is Article 107 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU and Article 4(1) and (2) of the Decision of the European Commission of 25 September 2007, interpreted in the light of points 3.3 and 4.2 of the Stranded Costs Methodology, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the implementation of a State aid programme which the European Commission has found to be compatible with the common market, the annual adjustment of the stranded costs incurred by group-affiliated power generators is carried out on the assumption that the position with respect to the group affiliation of the power generator as recorded in the annexes to the legislative measure examined by the Commission is alone decisive, or is it necessary to verify in respect of every year for which stranded costs are adjusted whether, during that period, the beneficiary of the State aid programme linked to the stranded costs actually belongs to the group to which the other power generators covered by the aid programme also belong?

      (1)  Commission Decision 2009/287/EC of 25 September 2007 on State aid awarded by Poland as part of Power Purchase Agreements and the State aid which Poland is planning to award concerning compensation for the voluntary termination of Power Purchase Agreements (notified under document number C(2007) 4319) (OJ 2009 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case T-545/15: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2016 — Pi-Design v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (PRESSO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration — Application for territorial extension of the protection — Word mark PRESSO — Earlier national word mark PRESSO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2016 — Pi-Design v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (PRESSO)
   (Case T-545/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration - Application for territorial extension of the protection - Word mark PRESSO - Earlier national word mark PRESSO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 022/34)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Pi-Design AG (Triengen, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Apelt, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 July 2015 (Case R 428/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between the Société des produits Nestlé and Pi-Design.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Pi-Design AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.


               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/28

         Designation of the judge to replace the President of the Civil Service Tribunal for the purpose of dealing with applications for interim measures
   (2007/C 235/50)
   On 19 September 2007, in accordance with Article 3(4) of Decision 2004/752 and Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the Tribunal decided that, for the period from 1 October 2007 to 30 September 2008, Judge Van Raepenbusch, President of the Second Chamber, shall replace the President of the Tribunal for the purpose of dealing with applications for interim measures in the event of the President's absence or his being prevented from attending.


title: Action brought on 25 February 1997 by the public limited company Forges de Clabecq against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-37/97)

text:
No C 131/22          f EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 4 . 97
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   annulment of the decision of the Commission describing
    adopted by the Commission on 22 November 1996                      as State aid the applicant's restructuring and ordering
    expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     cessation of all financial intervention on the part of the
                                                                       Belgian public authorities in favour of the public limited
                                                                       company Forges de Clabecq, as well as recovery of the
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                            amounts already granted.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       The applicant claims that there has been a breach of
                                                                       Article 4 of the ECSC Treaty and of the concept of aid
                                                                       contained therein inasmuch as, first, the contested decision
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 considers 'financial intervention of the Region of
Case T- 16/97 I 1 ).                                                   Wallonia ' and 'measures taken by Belgium' in respect of
                                                                       the applicant to constitute aid without taking account of
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                  the exact identity of the body distributing the alleged aid,
                                                                       namely SWS, a private law company, and, second,
                                                                       inasmuch as the contested decision mistakes the nature
                                                                       and source of the advantages granted, since no State
                                                                       resources whatever are involved. The applicant submits a
                                                                       second plea in annulment alleging incorrect application of
                                                                       the 'private investor in similar circumstances' rule and
                                                                       manifest error of assessment as regards the
Action brought on 25 February 1997 by the public limited               implementation of that concept. By way of a third plea in
company Forges de Clabecq against the Commission of                    law the applicant adduces breach of fundamental
                  the European Communities                             principles, of the rules of sound administration and of the
                                                                       rights of defence .
                          ( Case T-37/97)
                           ( 97/C 131 /52 )
                                                                       In the alternative, the applicant raises an objection of
               (Language of the case: French)                          illegality against Decision 3855/91 /ECSC (' 1991 Aid
                                                                       Code') in the event that — quod non — it should be
                                                                       considered that the projected plan presented characteristics
An action against the Commission of the European                       such as to qualify it as aid . First, the applicant claims a
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      breach of Article 95 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of the ECSC Treaty
Instance of the European Communities on 25 February                    inasmuch as a provision such as the aid code, adopted on
1997 by the public limited company Forges de Clabecq,                  the basis of Article 95 ( 1 ) of the ECSC Treaty, entails an
established in Clabecq ( Belgium ), represented by Alain               extensive modification of the powers of the Commission
Zenner, Dominique Jossart, Gerard Leplat and Gilbert                   by authorizing it to lay down by way of a legislative
Demez, receivers appointed by judgment of the Tribunal                 provision    the    conditions  in   which  State  aids      are
de Commerce, Nivelles, on 3 January 1997, and by Pierre               authorized, by authorizing it to examine the aid requested,
Paul van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with an address               if necessary by initiating an inter partes procedure to do
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr Schiltz,               so, and by authorizing it to ensure the observance and the
2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim .                                             monitoring of the allocation of such State aid, despite the
                                                                       fact that any change or adaptation of the powers of the
                                                                       Commission fall within the scope of Article 95 ( 2 ) and ( 3 )
                                                                       of the ECSC Treaty. It was therefore wrong not to apply
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            it. Secondly, it claims that Articles 92 and 93 of the ECSC
                                                                       Treaty were infringed inasmuch as Decision 3855/91
                                                                       ECSC involves and covers 'non-specific' aid, in particular
— annul the decision of the Commission of 18 December                  those aspects which concern research and development,
     1996 C43/96 Belgium-Forges de Clabecq,                            environmental protection and, finally, policy on aid to
                                                                       disadvantaged regions despite the fact that such matters
                                                                       go beyond the scope of the ECSC Treaty, since they are
                                                                       covered by provisions of the EC Treaty, without, however,
— make an appropriate order as to costs.                               the Code having its legal basis in the EC Treaty or its
                                                                       provisions being in compliance therewith. Finally the
                                                                       applicant alleges misuse of powers, a manifest error of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     assessment and breach of the principle of equality.
The applicant, an integrated steel undertaking that
produces liquid steel and finished flat products, seeks the


title: Case F-13/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 April 2007 — L v European Medicines Agency (EMEA) (Staff case — Invalidity — Invalidity Committee — Refusal to convene — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/42

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 April 2007 — L v European Medicines Agency (EMEA)
   (Case F-13/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Invalidity - Invalidity Committee - Refusal to convene - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 96/89)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: L (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMEA)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of 31 March 2006 refusing the applicant's request for the establishment of an Invalidity Committee.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

               2.

               The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007, p. 56.


title: Judgment of the Court of 22 July 2013 in Case E-9/12 — Iceland v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Sale of land by public authorities — Market investor principle — State Aid Guidelines — Well-publicised bidding procedure comparable to an auction — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               24.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/5

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 22 July 2013
   in Case E-9/12
   Iceland v EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Sale of land by public authorities — Market investor principle — State Aid Guidelines — Well-publicised bidding procedure comparable to an auction — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)
   2013/C 309/05
   In Case E-9/12, Iceland v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the partial annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 261/12/COL of 4 July 2012 concerning municipal tax measures, the sale of real estate and the sale of electricity to Verne Holdings ehf., the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 22 July 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               dismisses the application;

               2.

               orders the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-176/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Guy Riskin, Geneviève Timmermans v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Articles 63 and 65 TFEU — Article 4 TEU — Direct taxation — Taxation of dividends — Bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation — Third State — Scope)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/16

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Guy Riskin, Geneviève Timmermans v État belge
   (Case C-176/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Articles 63 and 65 TFEU - Article 4 TEU - Direct taxation - Taxation of dividends - Bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation - Third State - Scope))
   (2016/C 335/21)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Guy Riskin, Geneviève Timmermans

      Defendant: État belge

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4 TEU, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from not extending, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the benefit of the advantageous treatment accorded to a resident shareholder as a result of a bilateral double taxation convention concluded between that Member State and a third State — by which tax deducted at source by the third State is allowed unconditionally as a credit against tax payable in the shareholder’s Member State of residence — to a resident shareholder in receipt of dividends from a Member State with which that Member State of residence has concluded a bilateral double taxation convention under which the granting of such a set-off is subject to compliance with additional conditions provided for by national law.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015.


title: Case T-483/08: Action brought on 11 November 2008 — Giordano Enterprises v OHIM — José Dias Magalhães & Filhos (GIORDANO)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/30

         Action brought on 11 November 2008 — Giordano Enterprises v OHIM — José Dias Magalhães & Filhos (GIORDANO)
   (Case T-483/08)
   (2009/C 19/58)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Giordano Enterprises Ltd (Jalan Merdeka, Malaysia) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Dias Magalhães & Filhos Lda (Arrifana, Portugal)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 July 2008 in case R 1864/2007-2, as far as it dismissed the appeal of the applicant; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GIORDANO’ for goods in classes 18 and 25

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: Portuguese trade mark registration No 322 534 of the word mark ‘GIORDANO’ for goods in class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division to the extent that it upheld the opposition for certain goods in class 18 and dismissed the appeal for the reminder

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; Infringement of Article 42 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as well as Rule 15 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 (1) as the Board of Appeal wrongly rendered a decision pursuant to Article 8(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 40/94 while the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal based its opposition only on Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94.

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


title: Case T-494/11: Action brought on 16 September 2011 — Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and Others v Commission

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/27

         Action brought on 16 September 2011 — Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and Others v Commission
   (Case T-494/11)
   2011/C 331/53
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Livo Missir Mamachi di Lusignano (Kerkhove-Avelgem, Belgium), Anne Jeanne Cécile Magdalena Maria Sintobin (Brussels, Belgium), Stefano Missir Mamachi di Lusignano (Shanghai, China), Maria Letizia Missir Mamachi di Lusignano (Brussels, Belgium), Alessandro Missir Mamachi di Lusignano (heirs) (Rabat, Morocco) (represented by: F. Di Gianni, R. Antonimi and G. Coppo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Order the Commission to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicants as a result of the murder of Alessandro Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and his wife, Ariane Lagasse de Locht;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay compensatory interest and late payment interest accrued,

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the first plea in law, the Court is requested to order the Commission to pay compensation for the non-material damage unjustly suffered by the applicants as a result of the murder of Alessandro Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, former Commission official, and his wife, Ariane Lagasse de Locht. The applicants submit that the European Union has incurred non-contractual liability because the Commission negligently failed to ensure that the apartment made available to the murdered official and his family was equipped with appropriate and effective security devices suitable for the purposes of ensuring their safety. In support of their requests, the applicants rely on the conclusions reached in the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 May 2011 in Case F-50/09.
   In the alternative, on account of the totally exceptional nature of the case, the applicants submit that the Commission is liable for the damage caused on the grounds of unlawful conduct.


title: Case C-577/14 P: Appeal brought on 11 December 2014 by Brandconcern BV against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2014 in Case T-51/12: Scooters India Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/3

         Appeal brought on 11 December 2014 by Brandconcern BV against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2014 in Case T-51/12: Scooters India Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-577/14 P)
   (2015/C 089/04)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Brandconcern BV (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, H. Hartwig, Rechtsanwälte, G. Casucci, N. Ferretti, avvocati)

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

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2014, and dismiss the appeal by Scooters India Limited against the contested decision of the Board of Appeal of 1 December 2011, Case R 2312/2010-1,

               —

               secondarily, annul the contested judgment to the extent that it had annulled to contested decision for having dismissed the appeal of Scooters India Limited as regards ‘vehicles; apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water’,

               —

               order the Defendant and Scooters India Limited to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant bases its appeal on two pleas, alleging infringement of Article 50 (1) (a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), of 26 February 2009, on the Community trade mark, and, secondarily, an infringement of procedural rules by the General Court by not dismissing the application for annulment brought by Scooters India Limited to the extent it found the application unfounded.
   Scooters India Limited is the proprietor of a Community trade mark LAMBRETTA registered, inter alia, for ‘vehicles; apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water’ in class 12 of the International Classification. The appellant had brought an action to declare the mark revoked, inter alia, for the goods in class 12, on the basis of Article 50 (1) (a) of Regulation 207/2009 on grounds of absence of genuine use. This request was granted by the Cancellation Division of OHIM. The appeal brought by Scooters India Limited was dismissed by the First Board of Appeal of OHIM as unfounded. In the contested judgment, the General Court annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM. The General Court held that OHIM was obliged, on grounds of legal certainty, to take into accounts goods in class 12 for which genuine use had been alleged, even though these goods did not fall within the definition of the goods for which the mark was registered.
   The appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by requiring OHIM to take into account use of the mark LAMBRETTA alleged to have been made for certain goods, such as spare parts, even though these goods do not fall within the definition of the goods for which the mark LAMBRETTA is registered in class 12. The appellant asserts that under a proper interpretation of Article 50 (1) (a) of Regulation 207/2009 only use made for goods falling within the definition of the indications in the registration can be taken into account. The appellant asserts that the General Court was bound to apply the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-307/10, Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (IP TRANSLATOR).
   The appellant therefore contends that the contested judgment must be annulled and the application for annulment of the contested decision of the Board of Appeal must be dismissed.
   The appellant further submits, as a secondary plea, that, even it would be accepted that OHIM was under an obligation to take into account goods in class 12 for which genuine use was alleged to have been made, the General Court committed a procedural violation by annulling the contested decision without any limitation. After having accepted in the contested judgment that the proprietor of the mark LAMBRETTA had not proved genuine use of the mark for any goods for which it was registered (but obliging OHIM to take into account nevertheless the use made for other goods in the same class), the General Court was required to confirm the contested decision to the extent that the Board of Appeal had found no genuine use for the goods for which the mark was registered.

      (1)  OJ L 78, p. 1.


title: Case T-94/03: Action brought on 10 March 2003 by Ferriere Nord S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 112/42              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        10.5.2003
Action brought on 5 March 2003 by Luis Escobar Guer-                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
rero against the Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties                                      —     annul the decision of the Commission rejecting the
                                                                               applicant’s candidacy for the post of Grade A 2 as
                         (Case T-92/03)                                        Director of DG INFSO/A: ‘Information Services: policy
                                                                               and regulation’;
                        (2003/C 112/78)                                  —     annul the decision of the Commission of 29 March 2002;
                  (Language of the case: French)                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Pleas in law and main arguments
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 March 2003 by Luis Escobar                     The applicant, an official of the Commission, objects to the
Guerrero, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Albert                  Commission’s decision to reject his candidacy for the post of
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis, Étienne Marchal and Sébastien Orlan-            Grade A 2 as Director of DG INFSO/A: ‘Information Services:
di, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                  policy and regulation’.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              In support of his application, the applicant alleges:
—     annul the Commission’s decision not to include the                 —     breach of the obligation to provides reasons;
      applicant’s name on the list of officials promoted to
      Grade A5 for promotions round 2002, a decision which               —     infringement of Article 4, Article 7, the third paragraph
      results from the publication in ‘Informations administrat-               of Article 27, Article 26(1)(a) and Article 45 of the Staff
      ives’ No 40-2002 of 17 May 2002;                                         Regulations;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              —     breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-
                                                                               discrimination;
                                                                         —     manifest error of assessment;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —     infringement of the rules of conduct adopted by the
                                                                               Commission for filling of posts at grades A 1 and A 2.
In support of his application, the applicant alleges breach of
the obligation to state reasons. He also alleges breach of
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equal        Furthermore, he claims that the professional requirements for
treatment, of the principle that an official is entitled to              the post, as set down in the notice of vacancy, are unlawful
reasonable career prospects and of the principles of proper              inasmuch as they are not directed at securing the services of
administration and sound management.                                     officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and
                                                                         integrity in relation to the duties to be performed.
Action brought on 4 March 2003 by Spyros Konidaris
                                                                         Action brought on 10 March 2003 by Ferriere Nord S.p.A.
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-93/03)                                                            (Case T-94/03)
                        (2003/C 112/79)                                                           (2003/C 112/80)
                  (Language of the case: French)                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 March 2003 by Spyros Konidaris,                European Communities on 10 March 2003 by Ferriere Nord
residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Albert Coolen,            S.p.A., represented by Wilma Viscardini, Gabriele Donà and
Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers.                            Elena Perricone, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.5.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 112/43
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     principally, annul pursuant to Article 230 EC the decision
                                                                           —     annul the Commission Decision of 13 November 2002
      of the Commission of the European Communities of
                                                                                in which it was decided not to raise any objections to
      17 December 2002 C(2002) 5087 final, by which the
                                                                                the Disposición Transitoria Primera (First Transitional
      applicant was ordered to pay a fine of EUR 3 750 000,00
                                                                                Provision) of Real Decreto Ley 6/2000 de Medidas
      at the end of a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the
                                                                                Urgentes de Intensificación de la Competencia en Merca-
      ECSC Treaty (Case COMP/37.956 — Round bar steel for
                                                                                dos de Bienes y Servicios (Royal Decree Law on Emer-
      reinforced concrete);
                                                                                gency Measures to Promote Competition in Markets for
                                                                                Goods and Services);
—     failing that, annul in part Decision C(2002) 5087 final,
      with a consequential reduction of the fine,
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—     in any event, order the Commission of the European
      Communities to pay the costs.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
This action is directed against the same decision as that                  The applicants in the present action, which represent almost
challenged in Case T-27/03 (S.P. v Commission). The pleas in               all the existing service stations in Spain, are challenging the
law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in                 Commission’s failure to take action in respect of the exemption
that case. In addition to breach of rights of the defence, in that         of certain hypermarkets from the requirement to obtain
the communication of the Commission’s complaints did not                   permission from the authorities to vary the planning restric-
take into consideration whether there was any effect on intra-             tions on building and usage, an exemption introduced into
Community trade, the applicant alleges that the Commission                 Spanish law by the First Transitional Provision of Royal Decree
made an incorrect assessment of the length of its participation            Law No 6/2000 of 23 June on Emergency Measures to
in the agreement, decision or concerted practice, and of the               Promote Competition in Markets for Goods and Services. The
base prices, the prices of the ‘extra’ in terms of dimension and           stated objective of that exemption, which the applicants
the limitation of production and/or sales.                                 consider amounts to aid, was to facilitate the establishment of
                                                                           service stations on the premises of those hypermarkets, thereby
                                                                           promoting increased competition in the market for the retail
                                                                           supply of petroleum products in Spain.
                                                                           The Decision at issue in this action confirms that the disputed
                                                                           measure does not amount to State aid, since it does not entail
Action brought on 8 March 2003 by the Asociación de                        a transfer of State resources.
Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad
Autónoma de Madrid and the Federación Catalana de
Estaciones de Servicio against the Commission of the
                     European Communities                                  In support of their claims, the applicants submit:
                         (Case T-95/03)                                    —     that the measure at issue increases the value of the
                                                                                beneficiaries’ property is immediately and without their
                                                                                providing consideration and entails an exceptional
                        (2003/C 112/81)                                          reclassification of the land on which the hypermarkets are
                                                                                located, abolishes the charges, costs and administrative
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                               procedures which are necessary under normal circum-
                                                                                stances if a service station is to be opened and also
                                                                                entails the State’s surrender of its right to receive the
                                                                                consideration in money or money’s worth which would
                                                                                normally be applicable.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 March 2003 by the Asociación                     —     Manifest error of assessment on the Commission’s part in
de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad                         that it carried out an incomplete and incorrect analysis of
Autónoma de Madrid and the Federación Catalana de Estacion-                      the national planning legislation, which vitiates the
es de Servicio, both established in Madrid, represented by José                  Decision as regards the transfer of State resources and the
María Jiménez Laiglesia and Marta Delgado Echevarría.                            ensuing interpretation of Article 87(1) EC.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 January 2005 in Case C-188/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Berlin): Irmtraud Junk v Wolfgang Kühnel (Directive 98/59/EC — Collective redundancies — Consultation with workers' representatives — Notification to the competent public authority — Concept of ‘redundancy’ — Time at which redundancy takes effect)

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 27 January 2005
   in Case C-188/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Berlin): Irmtraud Junk v Wolfgang Kühnel (1)

   (Directive 98/59/EC - Collective redundancies - Consultation with workers' representatives - Notification to the competent public authority - Concept of ‘redundancy’ - Time at which redundancy takes effect)
   (2005/C 82/06)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-188/03, reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Arbeitsgericht (Labour Court) Berlin (Germany), made by decision of 30 April 2003, received at the Court on 7 May 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between Irmtraud Junk and Wolfgang Kühnel – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 January 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Articles 2 to 4 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be construed as meaning that the event constituting redundancy consists in the declaration by an employer of his intention to terminate the contract of employment.

               2.

               An employer is entitled to carry out collective redundancies after the conclusion of the consultation procedure provided for in Article 2 of Directive 98/59 and after notification of the projected collective redundancies as provided for in Articles 3 and 4 of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 06.09.2003.


title: Case T-33/13: Action brought on 24 January 2013 — Türkiye Garanti Bankasi/OHIM — Card & Finance Consulting (bonus&more)

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/23

         Action brought on 24 January 2013 — Türkiye Garanti Bankasi/OHIM — Card & Finance Consulting (bonus&more)
   (Case T-33/13)
   2013/C 86/37
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Türkiye Garanti Bankasi AS (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Card & Finance Consulting GmbH (Nürnberg, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘bonus&more’, for services in classes 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 037 251

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The International Registration of the figurative mark ‘bonusnet’, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 36, 38 and 42 — International Registration No 931 921

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allows the appeal and rejects the opposition

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-241/11: Action brought on 19 May 2011 — European Commission v Czech Republic

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/16

         Action brought on 19 May 2011 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-241/11)
   2011/C 232/27
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicants: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková, N.Yerrell and K.Ph. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 8, 9, 13, 15 to 18 and 20(2) to (4) of Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (1), and by thereby failing to fulfil its obligations under Article 22(1) of that directive, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations arising under the judgment in Case C-343/08 Commission v Czech Republic and thereby failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               order the Czech Republic to pay to the Commission account ‘own resources of the European Union’
               lump sum payments of EUR 5 644,80 for each day of delay in adopting the measures required by the judgment in Case C-343/08 Commission v Czech Republic, from the day of the delivery of that judgment on 14 January 2010

                           —

                           until the date of delivery of judgment in this case, or

                           —

                           until the date upon which the Czech Republic adopts the measures required by the judgment in Case C-343/08 Commission v Czech Republic, should that date be sooner than the delivery of judgment in this case, and

                     penalty payments of EUR 22 364,16 for each day of delay in adopting the measures required by the judgment in Case C-343/08 Commission v Czech Republic, from the date of delivery of judgment in this case until the date upon which the Czech Republic adopts the measures required by the judgment in Case C-343/08 Commission v Czech Republic; and

               —

               order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   On 14 January 2010, the Court of Justice gave judgment in Case C-343/08 Commission v Czech Republic
       (2), in which it held that ‘by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 8, 9, 13, 15 to 18 and 20(2) to (4) of Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 22(1) of that directive’.
   The Czech Republic has to date not informed the Commission that it has taken the legal and administrative measures necessary to comply with Articles 8, 9, 13, 15 to 18 and 20(2) to (4) of Directive 2003/41/EC so as to fulfil its obligations under Article 22(1) of that directive. The Commission therefore takes the view that the Czech Republic has not taken the measures required of it by the judgment in Case C-343/08. According to Article 260(2) TFEU, if the Commission considers that the Member State concerned has not taken the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court, it may bring the case before the Court and at the same time specify the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State concerned which it considers appropriate in the circumstances. On the basis of the method laid down in the Communication from the Commission on the application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty (SEC/2005/1658), the Commission claims that the Court should impose the lump sum and penalty payments as set out in the form of order sought.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 235, p. 10

      (2)  Not yet published in the ECR


title: Case C-478/16 P: Appeal brought on 2 September 2016 by the European Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 29 June 2016 in Case T-567/14 GROUP v EUIPO — ILIEV (GROUP COMPANY TOURISM & TRAVEL)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/7

         Appeal brought on 2 September 2016 by the European Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 29 June 2016 in Case T-567/14 GROUP v EUIPO — ILIEV (GROUP COMPANY TOURISM & TRAVEL)
   (Case C-478/16 P)
   (2017/C 078/10)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Appellant: European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, D, Stoyanova-Valchanova)

      Other parties to the proceedings:‘Group’ OOD, Kosta Iliev

      Form of order sought

   EUIPO claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               order Group OOD, applicant before the General Court, to bear the costs incurred by EUIPO.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   EUIPO relies on two grounds of appeal, namely (i) an infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) in conjunction with Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 (2), and (ii) an infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 19(2)(d) of Regulation No 2868/95.

      Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95

               —

               In the applicant’s view, Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 expressly lays down four conditions which are cumulative and independent of one another, of which two are governed by EU law and the remaining two by the specific national legislation relied on in the opposition. The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that the opponent, in addition to satisfying the two conditions which are governed by the specific national legislation, must furnish evidence of the content of that legislation. They constitute prerequisites and independent requirements, a failure to satisfy which cannot be remedied before the Board of Appeal if the opponent did not provide details of that legislation in good time before the Opposition Division.

               —

               To fall within the scope of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, facts and evidence which are submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal must complete or supplement the facts and documents already submitted with regard to the same requirement.

               —

               The General Court wrongly assumed, in the appellant’s view, that the submission of information regarding national legislation is generally a means of supplementing the evidence which has already been submitted in connection with the requirement laid down in Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.

               —

               It further submits that the General Court failed to examine, and without good reason, whether there was a sufficiently close or any connection between what was submitted before the Board of Appeal in relation to the national legislation and the evidence submitted in good time before the Opposition Division. Where such a connection is lacking, then evidence is ‘new’ and not ‘supplementary’ or does not serve to ‘complete’ evidence previously submitted, as is required under Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

      Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 19(2)(d) of Regulation No 2868/95

               —

               EUIPO submits that, with its finding that there are no formal requirements in relation to the submission of evidence in respect of the national legislation relied on, the General Court acted contrary to Rule 19(2)(d) of Regulation No 2868/95. In order to ensure the rights of defence of the defendant in inter partes proceedings, it is necessary to observe such formal requirements.

               —

               It further submits that, with regard to the principle of ‘congruent forms’, the requirements in relation to evidence of registration of a mark (Rule 19(2)(a), indent i, of Regulation No 2868/95) are applicable mutatis mutandis in relation to evidence of the provisions of the national legislation under which legal effects are granted to a non-registered trade mark.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

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


title: Case T-698/13 P: Appeal brought on 30 December 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 17 October 2013 in Case F-127/12 Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/44

         Appeal brought on 30 December 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 17 October 2013 in Case F-127/12 Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-698/13 P)
   2014/C 52/85
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               set aside in its entirety the order under appeal;

               —

               refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of his appeal, the appellant claims that the order under appeal is manifestly unfair, unjust and unlawful by virtue of a total failure to provide reasons and a failure to make preliminary inquiries, as well as on the grounds of ostensibly self-evident, tautologous and arbitrary reasoning, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, and error of law.


title: Case T-483/11: Action brought on 5 September 2011 — Sepro Europe v Commission

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/25

         Action brought on 5 September 2011 — Sepro Europe v Commission
   (Case T-483/11)
   2011/C 331/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sepro Europe Ltd (Harrogate, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Annul Commission Decision 2011/328/EU (1);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; and

               —

               Take such other or further measures as justice may require.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of appraisal, as it erred as a matter of law in justifying Commission Decision 2011/328/EU on the grounds of the alleged concerns regarding (i) worker exposure and (ii) environmental exposure.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the due process and the right of defence, as well as the principle of sound administration, as it wrongly took into account the alleged concern regarding isomer ratio which was only identified as a critical concern for the first time during the resubmission and at a very late stage of the procedure. As a result, the applicant was not given an opportunity to address the issue. Moreover, the defendant failed to take into consideration the proposal from the applicant for amendment.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that Commission Decision 2011/328/EU is unlawful because it is disproportionate. Even if it were accepted that there are concerns which deserve further attention, the measure in question is disproportionate in the way it approaches the alleged worker exposure and environmental exposure concerns.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that Commission Decision 2011/328/EU is unlawful because it is inadequately reasoned, as the defendant failed to provide any evidence or reasoning to justify its disagreement with the amendment proposed by the applicant, thus affecting the calculation of estimated worker exposure levels, as well as with the use of high technology glasshouses.

      (1)  Commission Implementing Decision of 1 June 2011 concerning the non-inclusion of flurprimidol in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (notified under document C(2011) 3733) (OJ 2011 L 153, p. 192)


title: Case T-512/16: Order of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — ED v EUIPO (Civil service — Temporary staff — Teleworking — Request for extension — Refusal — Actions — Subsequent grant of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/36

         Order of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — ED v EUIPO
   (Case T-512/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - Temporary staff - Teleworking - Request for extension - Refusal - Actions - Subsequent grant of invalidity - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 022/50)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ED (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, P. Saba and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision of EUIPO of 15 January 2014 refusing to grant the applicant’s request of 26 September 2013 to be allowed essentially to continue teleworking from Barcelona (Spain) until her health was restored.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate in the present case.

               2.

               ED shall bear one third of her own costs

               3.

               The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay two thirds of the costs incurred by ED.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-35/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-443/16: Action brought on 9 August 2016 — Italy v Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/21

         Action brought on 9 August 2016 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-443/16)
   (2016/C 371/23)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul notices of open competition EPSO/AD/323/16 and EPSO/AD/324/16.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contests before the General Court the notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/323/16 and EPSO/AD/324/16 to draw up reserve lists with, respectively, 40 places to fill vacant Administrator posts (AD 7) for the profile — Investigators: EU expenditure, anti-corruption, customs and trade, tobacco and counterfeit goods; and 10 places for Administrator posts (AD 9) for the profile — Investigators: Team leaders, published in the
         Official Journal of the European Union of 26 May 2016, No C 187 A.
   The same competition notices are the subject of Case T-401/16, Spain v Commission.
   The pleas in law and the main arguments are similar to those relied on in that case.
   The applicant alleges, in particular, infringement of Articles 18 TFEU, 24 TFEU, and 342 TFEU, and of Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, infringement of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, of the principle of proportionality and of the substantive rules inherent in the nature and purpose of notices of competition, misuse of powers and infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation 1/58.


title: Case T-41/13: Action brought on 29 January 2013 — Roy v Council and Commission

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/24

         Action brought on 29 January 2013 — Roy v Council and Commission
   (Case T-41/13)
   2013/C 86/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: René Roy (Juillac-le-Coq, France) (represented by: C.-E. Gudin, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Compensation in full for the loss suffered by reason of the fines, namely the sum of EUR 87 400;

               —

               Compensation in full for his non-pecuniary loss, namely the sum of EUR 100 000;

               —

               Order the Council and the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Cases T-195/11 Cahier and Others v Council and Commission
       (1) and T-458/11 Riche v Council and Commission. (2)

      (1)  OJ 2011 C 173, p. 14.

      (2)  OJ 2011 C 298, p. 28.


title: Case T-339/00: Action brought on 8 November 2000 by Bactria Industriehygiene Service GmbH & Co K.G. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
6.1.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 4/9
Action brought on 8 November 2000 by Bactria Industrie-                  —     It grants phase-out periods for the continued selling of
hygiene Service GmbH & Co K.G. against the Commission                          active substances that are found to be unfit for EU central
                 of the European Communities                                   register inclusion which are unreasonably long and will
                                                                               economically damage participating diligent companies,
                                                                               like the applicant.
                         (Case T-339/00)
                          (2001/C 4/14)                                  —     It requires companies to share commercially sensitive
                                                                               market information when making a notification, which
                                                                               gives rise to antitrust concerns when producers become
                                                                               aware of each other’s market volumes and shares.
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                —     It infringes well established principles of EU law such as
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     the fundamental right of data ownership, the principles
European Communities on 8 November 2000 by Bactria                             of legitimate expectations, proportionality, uniform
Industriehygiene Service GmbH & Co. KG, represented by                         application of Community law, and supremacy of inter-
Mr Koen Van Maldegem and Mr Claudio Mereu of the Brussels                      national agreements.
Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (1) Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                             of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products
—     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of                       on the market, OJ L 123 , of 24 April 1998, p. 1.
      7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme
      referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the           (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September
                                                                             2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article
      Europan Parliament and of the Council on biocidal
                                                                             16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the
      products, based on Article 230(4) of the EC Treaty;                    Council on biocidal products, OJ L 228 , of 8 September 2000,
                                                                             p. 6.
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs of these proceed-
      ings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant manufactures peracetic acid (‘PAA’), which is an
active substance used in biocidal products.
Pursuant to Article 16, paragraph 2 of Directive 98/8/EC (1),
the Commission initiated a programme of work for the review              Action brought on 7 November 2000 by the Comunità
of all active substances of biocidal products already on the             Montana della Valnerina against Commission of the Euro-
market. To this end, the Commission adopted regulation (EC)                                      pean Communities
No 1896/2000 (2). This regulation initiates a notification
procedure for active substances to be evaluated for a possible
inclusion in a list of substances that are eligible to be placed
on the market.                                                                                (Case T-340/00)
The applicant submits that it is individually and directly                                          (2001/C 4/15)
concerned by this regulation and seeks its annulment on the
following grounds:
—     The Regulation violates the data protection provisions                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
      set forth in the Directive by ignoring protection for
      commercially sensitive and expensive active substance
      data, legally granted by the Directive, during the review          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      period of these active substances.                                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 7 November 2000 by the Comu-
—     It distorts competition in violation of the EC Treaty in           nità Montana della Valnerina, represented by Emilio Cappelli
      that it allows companies which do not participate in the           and Paolo De Caterini, of the Rome Bar, with an address for
      review process to take a free ride on notifications made           service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 13 B,
      by participating diligent companies, like the applicant;           avenue Guillaume.


title: Action brought on 8 September 1997 by Giovanna Lonuzzo-Murgante against the European Parliament (Case T-247/97)

text:
1 . 11 . 97         1 EN [                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 331 /25
In support of her claims, she pleads, first, breach of the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in
that, according to a practice previously established by the
                                                                     By note of 21 January 1997 the applicant, a grade CI
defendant, the names of those officials most worthy of
                                                                     official, requested that her daughter, born on 14 October
promotion who are not promoted are entered once again                1968 , and her son, born on 6 June 1972, be treated as
in the list of officials most worthy of promotion in the
                                                                     dependent children. That request was granted in relation
following year. This gives rise to a legitimate expectation          to her son .
on the part of officials whose names appear in the list
that, if they are not promoted during the current year,
their names will, at the very least, be entered once again           The applicant pleads infringement of the obligation to
in the list for the following year. In that regard, the              provide a statement of reasons, inasmuch as the contested
applicant also pleads a breach of the obligation to provide          decision is based on an opinion of the Legal Service which
a statement of reasons .                                             was not communicated to the applicant, despite a formal
                                                                     request made by her lawyer.
The applicant further pleads irregularity in the promotion
procedure by reason of maladministration, inasmuch as,
faced with a report going back a long time, the defendant            The second plea alleges infringement of Article 2 (4 ) of
                                                                     Annex VII and a manifest error of assessment.
should, at the very least, have based its decision on the
most recent definitive staff report available. By virtue of
its failure to do so, the Commission was unable to carry
out a proper comparison of the merits of the officials
worthy of promotion.
                                                                               Removal from the register of T-209/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /51 )
Action brought on 8 September 1997 by Giovanna                                      (Language of the case: French)
     Lonuzzo-Murgante against the European Parliament
                        ( Case T-247/97)
                                                                     By order of 10 September 1997, the President of the Third
                          ( 97/C 331/50 )                            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                (Language of the case: French)                       Communities ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                     Case T-209/96 :      Adam      Buick v.    Commission of the
An action against the European Parliament was brought                European Communities.
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 8 September 1997 by Maria Lonuzzo                    H OJ C 54, 22 . 2 . 1997.
Murgante, residing in Strassen ( Luxembourg ), represented
by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane
Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Removal from the register of T-145/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /52 )
— annul the decision rejecting the request that Miss
     Maria Lonuzzo be treated as a dependent child,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— order the Parliament to pay to the applicant all social
     welfare allowances connected with the status of her
                                                                     By order of 15 September 1997, the President of the Third
     daughter Giovanna as a dependent child, together with
     default interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of
     date(s ) when they became payable until the date when
                                                                      Case T-145/96 : Monika Kawicki v. European Parliament.
     they are paid,
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                              H OJ C 336, 9 . 11 . 1996 .


title: Case T-646/13: Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2017 — Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe v Commission (Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative — Protection of national and linguistic minorities and strengthening of cultural and linguistic diversity in the European Union — Refusal of registration — Commission manifestly lacking legislative powers — Obligation to state reasons — Article 4(2)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011)

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2017 — Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe v Commission
   (Case T-646/13) (1)

   ((Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Protection of national and linguistic minorities and strengthening of cultural and linguistic diversity in the European Union - Refusal of registration - Commission manifestly lacking legislative powers - Obligation to state reasons - Article 4(2)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011))
   (2017/C 086/31)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bürgerausschuss für die Bürgerinitiative Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe (represented by: E. Johansson, J. Lund and C. Lund, and subsequently by E. Johansson and T. Hieber, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer, acting as Agent)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, A. Pálfy and G. Szima, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent) and Romania (represented by: R. Radu, R. Haţieganu, D. Bulancea and A. Wellman, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 5969 final of 13 September 2013 rejecting the request for registration of the proposed European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2013) 5969 final of 13 September 2013 rejecting the request for registration of the proposed European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Bürgerausschuss für die Bürgerinitiative Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe;

               3.

               Orders Hungary, the Slovak Republic and Romania to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.