title: Judgment of the Court 11 July 2002 in Case C-60/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal): Mary Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Freedom to provide services — Article 49 EC — Directive 73/148/EEC — National of a Member State established in that State and providing services to persons established in other Member States — Right of residence in that State of a spouse who is a national of a third country)

text:
28.9.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 233/5
M. Condou-Durande), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez                 let, R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),
Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von               Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,               11 July 2002, in which it has ruled:
R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of
Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 July               Article 49 EC, read in the light of the fundamental right to respect
2002, in which it:                                                         for family life, is to be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances
                                                                           such as those in the main proceedings, a refusal, by the Member State
                                                                           of origin of a provider of services established in that Member State
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                who provides services to recipients established in other Member States,
                                                                           of the right to reside in its territory to that provider’s spouse, who is a
2.    Orders Unión de Pequeños Agricultores to pay the costs;              national of a third country.
3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear
      its own costs.                                                       (1 ) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 (Fifth Chamber)
                           11 July 2002                                                                   11 July 2002
in Case C-60/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                   in Case C-62/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Immigration Appeal Tribunal): Mary Carpenter v                         the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)):
       Secretary of State for the Home Department (1)                      Marks & Spencer plc v Commissioners of Customs &
                                                                                Excise ( 1)
(Freedom to provide services — Article 49 EC — Directive
73/148/EEC — National of a Member State established in
                                                                           (Sixth VAT directive — National legislation retroactively
that State and providing services to persons established in
                                                                           curtailing a limitation period for repayment of sums unduly
other Member States — Right of residence in that State of a                paid — Compatibility with the principles of effectiveness
           spouse who is a national of a third country)
                                                                                and of the protection of legitimate expectations)
                         (2002/C 233/07)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/08)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-60/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom) for a                  In Case C-62/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                  for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
court between Mary Carpenter and Secretary of State for the                (England and Wales) in the proceedings pending before that
Home Department, on the interpretation of Article 49 EC and                court between Marks & Spencer plc and Commissioners of
Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the                         Customs & Excise, on the interpretation of Community law on
abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within                 the recovery of sums unduly paid, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to                composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
establishment and the provision of services (OJ 1973 L 172,                D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), Judges;
p. 14), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,                   L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
President, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of Cham-                for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 July 2002, in
bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathe-              which it has ruled:


title: Case C-544/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 23 November 2010 — Deutsches Weintor eG v Land Rheinland-Pfalz

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 23 November 2010 — Deutsches Weintor eG v Land Rheinland-Pfalz
   (Case C-544/10)
   2011/C 72/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deutsches Weintor eG

      Defendant: Land Rheinland-Pfalz

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the reference to health in a claim within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 4(3) in conjunction with Article 2(2)(5) or Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 (2) of 9 February 2010 (‘the Regulation’), require a beneficial nutritional or physiological effect aimed at a sustained improvement of physical condition, or is a temporary effect, limited in particular to the time taken by the intake and digestion of the food, sufficient?

               2.

               If the assertion of a temporary beneficial effect may in itself be a reference to health:
               In order for it to be assumed that such an effect is due to the absence or reduced content of a substance within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) and recital 15 in the preamble to the Regulation, is it sufficient merely to assert in the claim that an effect generally derived from foods of this kind and frequently perceived as being adverse is limited in a particular case?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative:
               Is it compatible with the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended on 13 December 2007, in conjunction with Article 15(1) (freedom to choose an occupation) and Article 16 (freedom to conduct a business) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as amended on 12 December 2007, (3) for a producer or marketer of wine to be prohibited, without exception, from making in its advertising a health claim of the kind at issue here, even if that claim is correct?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 404, p. 9.

      (2)  OJ 2010 L 37, p. 16.

      (3)  OJ 2007 C 303, p. 1.


title: Case C-179/12 P: Appeal brought on 16 April 2012 by The Dow Chemical Company against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 February 2012 in Case T-77/08: The Dow Chemical Company v European Commission

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/5

         Appeal brought on 16 April 2012 by The Dow Chemical Company against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 February 2012 in Case T-77/08: The Dow Chemical Company v European Commission
   (Case C-179/12 P)
   2012/C 184/09
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: The Dow Chemical Company (represented by: D. Schroeder and R. Polley, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the General Court's judgment in Case T-77/08 insofar as it dismisses its request to annul the Commission's decision of 5 December 2007 in Case COMP/38629 as amended by Commission decision C(2008) 2974 final of 23 June 2008 insofar as it relates to the Appellant;

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision of 5 December 2007 in Case COMP/38629 as amended by Commission decision C(2008) 2974 final of 23 June 2008 insofar as it relates to the Appellant;

               —

               In the alternative, set aside the General Court's judgment in case T-77/08 insofar as it dismisses its request to substantially reduce the fine imposed on it;

               —

               Substantially reduce the fine imposed on it;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the Dow Chemical Company's legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and

               —

               Take any other measures that the Court considers appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal contains two pleas. According to the first plea, the General Court erred in law as concerns the imputation of the infringement to the Appellant. Since the Appellant did not exercise decisive influence over DuPont Dow Elastomers (‘
         DDE
      ’), a joint venture with EI du Pont de Nemours and Company, it did not participate in the infringement committed by DDE. The General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the related concepts of a single economic unit, of a single undertaking and of the exercise of decisive influence. According to the second plea, the General Court erred in law as concerns the increase of the Appellant's fine by 10 % for deterrence. The General Court erred in law by holding that the Commission did not breach the principle of equal treatment in this respect.


title: Case T-65/07: Action brought on 2 March 2007 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM — ( 250 )

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/51

         Action brought on 2 March 2007 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM — (‘250’)
   (Case T-65/07)
   (2007/C 95/103)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

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

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

               —

               set aside in its entirety the decision delivered on 21 December 2006 by the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case No R 1034/2006-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘250 ’for goods in Class 16

      Decision of the Examiner: registration refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: incorrect application of the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (1), inasmuch as, according to the applicant, the designation ‘250’, in relation to the goods indicated, is neither descriptive nor devoid of distinctive character.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-243/05 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2006 — Agraz, SA and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products — Production aid for processed tomato products — Method of calculating the amount of the aid — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Certain loss)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/13

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2006 — Agraz, SA and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-243/05 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products - Production aid for processed tomato products - Method of calculating the amount of the aid - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Certain loss)
   (2006/C 326/28)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellants: Agraz, SA, established in Madrid (Spain), Agrícola Conservera de Malpica, SA, established in Toledo (Spain), Agridoro Soc. coop. arl, established in Pontenure (Italy), Alfonso Sellitto SpA, established in Mercato San Severino (Italy), Alimentos Españoles, Alsat, SL, established in Don Benito, (Spain), AR Industrie Alimentari SpA, established in Angri (Italy), Argo Food — Packaging & Innovation Co. SA, established in Serres (Greece), Asteris SA, established in Athens (Greece), Attianese Srl, established in Nocera Superiore (Italy), Audecoop Distillerie Arzens — Techniques séparatives (AUDIA), established in Bram (France), Benincasa Srl, established in Angri, Boschi Luigi e Figli SpA, established in Fontanellato (Italy), CAS SpA, established in Castagnaro (Italy), Calispa SpA, established in Castel San Giorgio (Italy), Campil — Agro Industrial do Campo do Tejo Lda, established in Cartaxo (Portugal), Campoverde Srl, established in Nocelleto di Carinola (Italy), Carlo Manzella & C. Sas, established in Castel San Giovanni (Italy), Carnes y Conservas Españolas SA, established in Mérida (Spain), CO.TRA.PO Soc. coop. arl, in liquidation, established in Adria (Italy), Columbus Srl, established in Parma (Italy), Compal — Companhia Produtora de Conservas Alimentares, SA, established in Almeirim (Portugal), Conditalia Srl, established in Nocera Superiore, Conservas El Cidacos, SA, established in Autol (Spain), Conservas Elagón, SA, established in Coria (Spain), Conservas Martinete, SA, established in Puebla de la Calzada (Spain), Conservas Vegetales de Extremadura, SA, established in Villafranco del Guadiana (Spain), Conserve Italia Soc. coop. arl, established in San Lazzaro di Savena (Italy), Conserves France SA, established in Nîmes (France), Conserves Guintrand SA, established in Carpentras (France), Conservificio Cooperativo Valbiferno Soc. coop. arl, established in Guglionesi (Italy), Consorzio Casalasco del Pomodoro Soc. coop. arl, established in Rivarolo del Re ed Uniti (Italy), Consorzio Padano Ortofrutticolo (Copador) Soc. coop. arl, established in Collecchio (Italy), Copais Food and Beverage Company SA, established in Nea Ionia (Greece), Tin Industry D. Nomikos SA, established in Marousi (Greece), Davia Srl, established in Gragnano (Italy), De Clemente Conserve Srl, established in Fisciano (Italy), De.Con Srl, established in Scafati (Italy), Desco SpA, established in Terracina (Italy), Di Leo Nobile SpA — Industria Conserve Alimentari, established in Castel San Giorgio, Ditta Emilio Marotta, established in Sant'Antonio Abate (Italy), E. & O. von Felten SpA, established in Fontanini (Italy), Elais SA, established in Athens, Emiliana Conserve Srl, established in Busseto (Italy), Enrico Perano & Figli Spa, established in San Valentino Torio (Italy), FIT — Fomento da Indústria do Tomate, SA, established in Águas de Moura (Portugal), Faiella & C. Srl, established in Scafati, Feger di Gerardo Ferraioli SpA, established in Angri, Fratelli D'Acunzi Srl, established in Nocera Superiore, Fruttagel Soc. coop. arl, established in Alfonsine (Italy), Giaguaro SpA, established in Sarno (Italy), Giulio Franzese Srl, established in Carbonara di Nola (Italy), Greci Geremia & Figli SpA, established in Parma, Greci — Industria Alimentare SpA, established in Parma, Greek Canning Co. SA ‘Kyknos’, established in Nauplie (Greece), ‘Grilli Paolo & Figli Sas’ di Grilli Enzo e Togni Selvino, established in Gambettola (Italy), Heinz Iberica, SA, established in Alfaro (Spain), IAN — Industrias Alimentarias de Navarra, SA, established in Vilafranca (Spain), Indústrias de Alimentação Idal, Lda, established in Benavente (Portugal), Industrie Rolli Alimentari SpA, established in Roseto degli Abruzzi (Italy), Italagro — Indústria de Transformação de Produtos Alimentares, SA, established in Castanheira do Ribatejo (Portugal), La Cesenate Conserve Alimentari SpA, established in Cesena (Italy), La Doria SpA, established in Angri, La Dorotea di Giuseppe Alfano & C. Srl, established in Sant'Antonio Abate, La Rosina Srl, established in Angri, Le Quattro Stelle Srl, established in Angri, Louis Martin Production SAS, established in Monteux (France), Menu Srl, established in Medolla (Italy), Mutti SpA, established in Montechiarugolo (Italy), National Conserve Srl, established in Sant'Egidio del Monte Albino (Italy), Nestlé España, SA, established in Miajadas (Spain), Nuova Agricast Srl, established in Verignola (Italy), Pancrazio SpA, established in Cava De' Tirreni (Italy), Pecos SpA, established in Castel San Giorgio, Pomagro Srl, established in Fisciano (Italy), Raffaele Viscardi Srl, established in Scafati, Rodolfi Mansueto SpA, established in Ozzano Taro, Salvati Mario & C. SpA, established in Mercato San Severino, Sefa Srl, established in Nocera Superiore, Serraiki Konservopia Oporokipeftikon Serko SA, established in Serres, Soc. coop. arl. A.R.P. — Agricoltori Riuniti Piacentini, established in Gariga di Podenzano (Italy), Sociedade de Industrialização de Produtos Agrícolas — Sopragol SA, established in Mora (Portugal), Spineta SpA, established in Pontecagnano Faiano (Italy), Star Stabilimento Alimentare SpA, established in Agrate Brianza (Italy), Sugal Alimentos, SA, established in Azambuja (Portugal), Sutol Indústrias Alimentares, Lda, established in Alcácer do Sal (Portugal), Tomsil — Sociedade Industrial de Concentrado de Tomate, SA, established in Ferreira do Alentejo (Portugal), Zanae — Nicoglou levures de boulangerie, Industrie commerce alimentaire SA, established in Thessaloniki (Greece), (represented by: J.L. da Cruz Vilaça and D. Choussy, lawyers,)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Nolin, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents,)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 March 2005 by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), Agraz, SA and Others v Commission, in which the Court rejected an action for compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicants by reason of the method adopted for calculation of production aid as set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1519/2000 of 12 July 2000 setting for the 2000/1 marketing year the minimum price and the amount of production aid for processed tomato products (OJ 2000 L 174, p. 29)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 17 March 2005 in Case T-285/03 Agraz and Others v Commission in so far as it dismissed the claims of the appellants in the present appeal on the ground that the alleged loss was not certain and, consequently, in so far as it ordered them to bear five sixths of their costs and ordered the Commission to pay a sixth of the appellants' costs and to bear its own costs;

               2)

               Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

               3)

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193 of 6.8.2005.


title: Case C-268/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hamburgisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 May 2011 — Atilla Gülbahce v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hamburgisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 May 2011 — Atilla Gülbahce v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg
   (Case C-268/11)
   2011/C 269/43
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Hamburgisches Oberverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Atilla Gülbahce

      Defendant: Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 (1) to be interpreted as meaning

                           (a)

                           that a Turkish worker who has been duly granted a permit to take up employment in the territory of a Member State for a particular period (which may be unlimited) that extends beyond the duration of his residence permit (‘overrunning work permit’) may exercise his rights under that permit for the whole of that period provided that this is not precluded on grounds relating to the protection of a legitimate national interest such as public policy, public security or public health,

                           (b)

                           and that a Member State is prohibited from refusing a priori to recognise that permit as having any effect on his residence status on the basis of national provisions in force at the time when the permit was granted which make the work permit dependent on the residence permit (in accordance with the judgments in Case C-416/96 El-Yassini [1999] ECR I-1209, paragraph 3 of the summary of the judgment, paragraphs 62 to 65 of the grounds, concerning the scope of Article 40(1) of the EEC-Morocco Agreement, and Case C-97/05 Gattoussi [2006] ECR I-11917, paragraph 2 of the summary of the judgment, paragraphs 36 to 43 of the grounds, concerning the scope of Article 64(1) of the EC-Tunisia Euro-Mediterranean Agreement)?

                     If that question is to be answered in the affirmative:

               2.

               Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 to be interpreted as meaning that the standstill clause also prohibits a Member State, by means of a legislative provision (in this case, the Gesetz über den Aufenthalt, die Erwerbstätigkeit und die Integration von Ausländern im Bundesgebiet (Law on the Residence, Gainful Employment and Integration of Foreign Nationals in Federal Territory) of 30 July 2004), from depriving a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to its labour force of the possibility of relying on a breach of the principle of non-discrimination contained in Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 by reason of a work permit previously granted to him for a period extending beyond the duration of the residence permit?
               If that question is to be answered in the affirmative:

               3.

               Is Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 be interpreted as meaning that the principle of non-discrimination there laid down does not in any event prohibit the national authorities, in accordance with national provisions, from withdrawing, after their period of validity has expired, residence permits of limited duration wrongfully granted to a Turkish worker under national law for such periods of time during which the Turkish worker actually made use of a work permit of unlimited duration which had previously been duly granted to him and was in employment?

               4.

               Is Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 further to be interpreted as meaning that that provision covers only employment in which a Turkish worker who is in possession of a work permit which has been duly granted to him by the national authorities for an unlimited period and without restrictions ratione materiae is engaged at the time when his residence permit, which has been granted for a limited period for a different purpose, expires, and that a Turkish worker in that situation cannot therefore ask the national authorities, even after having permanently left that employment, to grant him further right of residence for the purposes of new employment — which may be taken up after an interval of time needed to look for another job?

               5.

               Is Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 further to be interpreted as meaning that the principle of non-discrimination (only) bars the national authorities of the host Member State from taking measures, after the last-issued residence permit has expired, to repatriate a Turkish national duly registered as belonging to its labour force to whom it originally granted specific rights in relation to employment which were more extensive than his rights of residence, in so far as such measures do not serve to protect a legitimate national interest, but does not require them to issue a residence permit?

      (1)  Decision 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the EEC-Turkey Association


title: Case T-104/13: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Toshiba v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, capacity and production — Proof of participation in the cartel — Single and continuous infringement — Imputability of the infringement — Joint control — Fines — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Toshiba v Commission
   (Case T-104/13) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, capacity and production - Proof of participation in the cartel - Single and continuous infringement - Imputability of the infringement - Joint control - Fines - Unlimited jurisdiction))
   (2015/C 346/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Toshiba Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J. MacLennan, Solicitor, J. Jourdan, A. Schulz and P. Berghe, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, V. Bottka and M. Kellerbauer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 final of 5 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, cancellation or reduction of the amount of the fine which was imposed on it.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls, in part, Article 1(2)(d) of Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 final of 5 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes) in so far as it finds that Toshiba Corp. participated in a global cartel in the market for colour picture tubes for television sets from 16 May 2000 until 31 March 2003;

               2.

               Annuls Article 2(2)(g) of that decision in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 28 048 000 on Toshiba for its direct participation in a global cartel in the market for colour picture tubes for television sets;

               3.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Toshiba in Article 2(2)(h) of the decision at issue, jointly and severally with Panasonic Corp. and MT Picture Display Co. Ltd, at EUR 82 826 000;

               4.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               5.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.


title: Case T-221/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Hipp & Co v OHIM — Laboratoris Ordesa (Bebimil) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark Bebimil — Earlier Community and national word marks BLEMIL — Earlier national word mark BLEMIL 1 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/54

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Hipp & Co v OHIM — Laboratoris Ordesa (Bebimil)
   (Case T-221/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark Bebimil - Earlier Community and national word marks BLEMIL - Earlier national word mark BLEMIL 1 - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Likelihood of confusion)
   2009/C 267/92
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hipp & Co KG (Sachseln, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and A. Bognár, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Laboratoris Ordesa, SL (Sant Boi de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: R. Thierie and E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2006 (Case R 571/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ordesa, SL and Hipp & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Hipp & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.


title: Case C-653/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2006/12/EC — Articles 4 and 5 — Waste management — Region of Campania — Judgment of the Court — Finding of a failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to comply in full with a judgment of the Court — Article 260(2) TFEU — Financial penalties — Penalty payment — Lump sum payment)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-653/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2006/12/EC - Articles 4 and 5 - Waste management - Region of Campania - Judgment of the Court - Finding of a failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to comply in full with a judgment of the Court - Article 260(2) TFEU - Financial penalties - Penalty payment - Lump sum payment))
   (2015/C 311/06)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Commission v Italy (C-297/08, EU:C:2010:115), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU,

               2.

               orders the Italian Republic to pay the European Commission, into the account ‘European Union own resources’, a penalty payment of EUR 1 20  000 for each day of delay in adopting the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in Commission v Italy (C-297/08, EU:C:2010:115), from the day of delivery of the judgment in the present case until the day on which the judgment in Commission v Italy (C-297/08, EU:C:2010:115) is complied with,

               3.

               orders the Italian Republic to pay the European Commission a lump sum, into the account ‘European Union own resources’, of EUR 20 million,

               4.

               orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.


title: Case T-284/14: Order of the General Court of 28 April 2015 — Dyckerhoff Polska v Commission (Action for annulment — Time-limit for bringing an action — Out of time — No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances — Manifest inadmissibility — Plea of illegality)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/32

         Order of the General Court of 28 April 2015 — Dyckerhoff Polska v Commission
   (Case T-284/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Time-limit for bringing an action - Out of time - No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances - Manifest inadmissibility - Plea of illegality))
   (2015/C 205/43)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Dyckerhoff Polska sp. z o.o. (Nowiny, Poland) (represented by: K. Kowalczyk, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament.

               3.

               Dyckerhoff Polska sp. z o.o. shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.


title: Joined Cases T-558/12 and T-559/12: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China — Amendment of the regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty — Article 2(10) and (11) of Regulation No 1225/2009 — Calculation of the dumping margin — Adjustments — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener v Council
   (Joined Cases T-558/12 and T-559/12) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China - Amendment of the regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty - Article 2(10) and (11) of Regulation No 1225/2009 - Calculation of the dumping margin - Adjustments - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2015/C 198/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Changshu City Standard Parts Factory (Changshu City, China); and Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd (Ningbo, China) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, acting as Agent, assisted initially by G. Berrich and A. Polcyn, subsequently by A. Polcyn and finally by D. Geradin, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents); and European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI) (represented by: J. Bourgeois and R. Grasso, lawyers)

      Re:

   Actions for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 of 4 October 2012, amending Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 275, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the actions;

               2)

               Orders Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union and European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI);

               3)

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.


title: Case C-406/01: Action brought on 15 October 2001 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

text:
C 348/18                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8.12.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 15 October 2001 by the Federal
                                                                         Republic of Germany against the European Parliament
                                                                                and the Council of the European Union
—     Infringement of the conditions laid down by Decision
      2001/376/EC (2), the Commission adopted Decision                                           (Case C-406/01)
      2001/577/EC without having carried out all the inspec-
      tions prescribed by Article 21 of Decision 2001/376/EC.
      The last inspection report of the Food and Veterinary                                      (2001/C 348/33)
      Office communicated to the French Republic before the
      decision of 25 July 2001 was the report of 25 to 27 June
      2001 in its final version DG(SANCO)3345/2001, which
      does not examine the development of the incidence of
      the disease and the effective enforcement of the relevant          An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
      national measures and does not contain a risk assessment           the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice
      demonstrating whether appropriate measures to manage               of the European Communities on 15 October 2001 by the
      any risk have been taken. It is apparent from the                  Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter
      conclusions of that report that, at the time when the              Plessing, Ministerialrat, Moritz Lumma, Oberregierungsrat,
      inspection report was submitted, the desired legislation           both of the Federal Ministry of Finance, 108 Graurheindorfer
      was not yet in force and certain Food and Veterinary               Straße, D-53117 Bonn, and Jochim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt,
      Office inspections were still awaited in order to avoid the        of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, 1 Potsdamer Platz,
      risk of ‘cross-contamination’ which have been revealed in          D-10785 Berlin.
      other countries. The Portuguese decree-law which sets
      out the DBES was not approved until 12 July 2001, that
      is to say two weeks before the lifting of the ban fixed for
      1 August 2001, and the DBES application manual was to              The applicant claims that the Court should:
      be submitted to the Minister for Agriculture on 14 July.
      The French Government therefore considers that ‘effective
                                                                         1.    Annul Article 3(1) in conjunction with Article 3(2) of
      enforcement of the relevant national measures’, within
                                                                               Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the meaning of Article 21(2) was not ensured at the time
                                                                               the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the
      when the decision setting the date for the lifting of the
                                                                               laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
      ban was adopted.
                                                                               Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation
                                                                               and sale of tobacco products (1), in so far as those
      Nor could the operational effectiveness of the procedures                provisions prohibit the manufacture of cigarettes for
      set up be checked, either in terms of traceability of bovine             export from the European Community to non-member
      products or in terms of tests on cattle, on the date on                  countries;
      which the contested decision was adopted any more than
      it could on the date set for the partial lifting of the ban.       2.    Order the defendants to pay the costs.
      Accordingly, the Commission infringed Article 22 of
      Decision 2001/376/EC.
—     Infringement of the precautionary principle: while                 Pleas in law and main arguments
      Article 174 EC falls within the framework of Community
      environmental policy, Community case-law does not                  —     Article 95 EC is not an adequate legal basis for the
      confine the precautionary principle to that field alone                  contested prohibition of export. Approximation
      and extends it to public health objectives. The nature and               measures under Article 95 EC must have as their subject
      seriousness of the risks relating to BSE warrant full                    the elimination of differences between the legal systems
      compliance with the precautionary principle.                             of the Member States with the aim of eliminating
                                                                               distortions of competition in relations between the
                                                                               Member States or preventing them from occurring.
                                                                               Measures which concern exports to non-member
                                                                               countries are not covered by Article 95 EC. The internal
(1) OJ L 203, 28.7.2001, p. 27.                                                market aim of removing barriers to trade which result
(2) Commission Decision 2001/376/EC concerning measures made                   from differing national rules is achieved already by
    necessary by the occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopa-              the prohibition of marketing. That a prohibition of
    thy in Portugal and implementing a date-based export scheme (OJ            manufacture is not necessary for that purpose is shown
    L 132, 15.5.2001, p. 17).
                                                                               by the fact that all comparable harmonisation directives
                                                                               (for example, in the field of regulating additives to
                                                                               foodstuffs) confine themselves to prohibitions of market-
                                                                               ing and do not lay down prohibition of manufacture. The
                                                                               prohibition of manufacture in the contested Directive
                                                                               thus in fact pursues exclusively the aim of the protection
 ---pagebreak--- 8.12.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 348/19
     of health of Community citizens, since according to               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile
     recital 11 of the Directive the prohibition is to ensure          e Penale di L’Aquila by order of 5 October 2001 in the
     that ‘the internal market provisions are not undermined’                 case of Rolando Salusest v Giovanni Petrucci
     (by illegal reimports). The prohibition of manufacture
     thus appears, according to its true nature, as a pure
     prohibition of export. However, in the opinion of the
     German Government, such a measure cannot be based                                          (Case C-409/01)
     on Article 95 EC either, since protection against illegal
     imports (whether the causes are of a State or private
     character) does not fall within the scope of Article 95 EC.
     Nor, finally, can Article 95 be an appropriate ground of
     competence for a general prohibition of manufacture and                                    (2001/C 348/34)
     export in view of the aim of preventing ‘evasion’ of the
     rules of the internal market, since so comprehensive a
     prohibition would be manifestly disproportionate to
     achieving the aim pursued. That is because it is almost
     exclusively cigarettes manufactured in non-member
     countries, not in the Community, which are the object of
     illegal imports.
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of 5 October 2001 by the
—    Article 133 EC is not a proper legal basis for the contested      Tribunale Civile e Penale di l’Aquila (Civil and Criminal District
     prohibition of export. The aim of the contested measure           Court, L’Aquila), which was received at the Court Registry on
     is not in fact the regulation of trade with non-member            16 October 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
     countries or the influencing of commerce or trade flows,          of Rolando Salusest v Giovanni Petrucci on the following
     but the prevention of illegal reimports. The measure does         questions:
     not therefore meet the requirements for competence
     defined by the Court of Justice in opinions 1/94 and
     2/92.
                                                                       (a)  Is the provision of binding minimum tariffs contrary to
                                                                            free competition on the ground that it prevents the free
     In the alternative: even if the scope of Article 133 EC                fixing of fees for a lawyer’s services, as provided for under
     were available, the prohibition of export cannot, in                   Article 81(1)(a) EC, and does it also have the effect
     the opinion of the German Government, be based on                      of reinforcing the compartmentalisation of markets at
     Article 133, because it restricts disproportionately the               national level, thereby hindering the economic integration
     principle of freedom of export to be taken into account                intended by the Treaty?
     by the Community legislature, and hence infringes the
     third paragraph of Article 5 EC. In view of the trivial
     extent of reimports of cigarettes manufactured in the                  Lawyers who are nationals of other EC Member States
     Community, the contested provision is not appropriate                  and who work in Italy are also required under Article 13
     at all for protecting Community citizens effectively                   of the Law of 9 February 1982 to comply with the tariff
     against health risks caused by illegal imports into the                for legal fees and thus also with the rule prohibiting
     Community; that aim can only be effectively attained by                differentiation of amounts below a specified minimum
     a reinforcement of import controls, which are necessary                level.
     anyway for combating the evasion of customs duty, are
     much more effective, and involve much lesser competitive
     disadvantages for Community industry. Since the contest-
     ed provision does not constitute an ‘overt’ and ‘specific’        (b) Are Articles 633(1)(2) and 636(1) of the Italian Code of
     measure of external trade policy, but is intended to ensure            Civil Procedure, under which a lawyer is authorised to
     higher health standards in the Community, the reference                have his fees determined by the Council of the order to
     to Article 133 EC amounts to an evasion of                             which he belongs through the adoption of an opinion
     Article 152(4)(c) EC.                                                  binding on his client and on the court (in enforcement
                                                                            proceedings), allowing him to obtain entitlement based
                                                                            on that unilateral determination of the professional
—    The combination of the above legal bases, each of which                fee pursuant to the abovementioned minimum tariffs,
     is insufficient on its own, does not confer on them a                  contrary to free competition on the ground that they
     more extensive scope.                                                  prevent the free fixing of fees for a lawyer’s services, as
                                                                            provided for under Article 81(1)(a) EC, by reserving such
                                                                            determination to a body consisting exclusively of lawyers?
(1) OJ L 194 of 18.7.2001, p. 26.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Roma by order of that court of 3 October 1995 in the case of Emanuele Iurlaro against Previdenza Sociale (INPS) (Case C-322/95)

text:
30 . 12 . 95          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 351 / 1
                                                                   I
                                                             (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   1 . declares that, by maintaining in force provisions under
                       ( Sixth Chamber)                                    which excess amounts of tax deducted from the wages
                                                                           or salaries ofnationals ofa Member State who resided in
                     of 26 October 1995                                    Luxembourg or occupied a salaried position there for
      in Case C-151 /94 : Commission of the European                       only part ofthe tax year are to remain the property ofthe
     Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1 )                        Treasury and are not repayable, the Grand Duchy of
(Article 48 ofthe EC Treaty — Equal treatment — Taxation                   Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
of income of temporary residents — Repayment of excess                     Article 48 (2) of the Treaty and Article 7 (2) of Council
                               tax)                                        Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on
                                                                           freedom of movement for workers within the
                         ( 95/C 351 /01 )                                  Community;
                (Language of the case: French)                         2 . orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
                                                                           costs .
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           (') OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-151 /94 : Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : Helene Michard and Enrico
Traversa ) v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( Agent: Nicolas
Schmit ) — application for a declaration that, by maintaining
in force provisions under which excess amounts of tax
deducted from the wages or salaries of nationals of a
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                                                                       Circondariale di Roma by order of that court of 3 October
Member State who resided in Luxembourg and/or occupied
                                                                       1995 in the case of Emanuele Iurlaro against Previdenza
a salaried position there for only part of the tax year shall
                                                                                Sociale ( INPS )
remain the property of the Treasury and cannot be repaid
nor adjusted , the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to                                    ( Case C-322/95 )
fulfil its obligations under Article 48 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty                                  ( 95/C 351 /02 )
and Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of 15 October
1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
Community , and in particular Article 7 ( 2 ) thereof ( OJ,            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 ) — the Court ( Sixth      European Communities by order of the Pretura
Chamber ), composed of: C.N. Kakouris, President of the                Circondariale di Roma ( Rome District Magistrates' Court )
Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ), F.A.                  of 3 October 1 995 , which was received at the Court Registry
Schockweiler and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,                    on 16 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave             Emanuele Iurlaro against Previdenza Sociale ( INPS ) on the
a judgment on 26 October 1995 in which it:                             interpretation of Article 15 ( 1 ) ( f) of Regulation ( EEC )
 ---pagebreak--- No C 351 /2               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         30 . 12 . 95
No 547/72 (') and 9a of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2332/89 ( 2 ),                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
in the light of Article 48 of the EC Treaty in order to                     Genova — Sezione Prima Civile by order of that court of
ascertain                                                                   5 October 1995 in the case of ( 1 ) F.lli Carli SpA ( 2 ) Casa
                                                                            di Speditione Viale sas against Amministrazione delle
                                                                                Finanze
'whether Article 4 of Law No 222/ 1 984 should be so applied                                            ( Case C-333/95 )
as to extend the reference period for the recognition of                                                   95 /C 351 /04
entitlement to invalidity pension where a worker has been in
receipt of unemployment benefit in another Member State
in which such extension is provided for and , if so, whether
such extension should be subject to conditions .'
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
(') OJ , English Special Edition 1972 ( I ), p . 149 .                      Genova — Sezione Prima Civile ( District Court, Genoa ,
( 2 ) o'| No L 224, 2. 8 . 1989, p. 1 .                                     First Civil Section ) of 5 October 1995 , which was received at
                                                                            the Court Registry on 20 October 1995 , for a preliminary
                                                                            ruling in the case of ( 1 ) F.lli Carli SpA ( 2 ) Casa di Speditione
                                                                            Viale sas against Amministrazione delle Finanze on the
                                                                            following questions :
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lansratten                      1 . does the suspension of customs duties on imports from
Stockholm, by order of that court of 13 October 1995 , in                         Spain of the agricultural products listed in the Annex to
            proceedings brought by V.A.G. Sverige AB                              the Regulation ( EEC ) No 3835/90 ( } ), as provided for
                                                                                by Article 1 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3416/91 ( 2 ), also
                           ( Case C-329/95 )                                      apply to imports from Spain of preserved tuna in olive
                             ( 95/C 351 /03 )                                     oil ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Lansratten
( County Administrative Court ) Stockholm of 13 October                     2 . May the competent customs authorities, pursuant
 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                               to Article 5 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
 19 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in proceedings                        No 1679/79 ( 3 ), as supplemented by Regulation ( EEC )
brought by V.A.G. Sverige AP> on the following                                    No 1715/90 ( 4 ) and Article 2 of implementing
questions :                                                                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 2164/91 ( s ) initiate action for the
                                                                                recovery of customs duties which were not collected at
                                                                                the time of importation because they were regarded as
 1 . is the requirement of a certificate under the                                having been totally suspended as a result of an erroneous
       Bilregisterkungorelsen (') compatible with the                             interpretation of the Community legislation in force, but
       provisions of Council Directive 70/ 156/EEC (2 ), as                       which subsequently proved to be due on the basis of a
       worded in its latest version ?                                             different interpretation of the same Community
                                                                                legislation provided by the Commission of the EC after
                                                                                consulting its Legal Service , where the person liable
                                                                                observed all the provisions laid down by the rules in
2 . If the answer to question 1 is affirmative, is the                            force as far as his customs declaration was concerned
       requirement in question compatible with Article 30 of                      and it does not appear that that person was aware that
       the Treaty of Rome, or can it be said to constitute a                      the interpretation initially given to the Community
       measure ' having equivalent effect'?                                       legislation by the Italian authorities was erroneous ?
 3 . In the event that the answer to Question 1 is affirmative
       and the answer to Question 2 is that the measure is to be            (')   OJ  No L  370 , p. 126 .
       regarded as a 'measure having equivalent effect', can the            (2)   OJ  No L  324 , p. 11 .
       Swedish certificate requirement be maintained on the                  (•') OJ  No L  197,  p. 1.
       basis of Article 36 ?                                                 (4 ) OJ  No L  160,  p. 1.
                                                                             (■<) Of  No L  201 , p. 16 .
 (') Section 12 , first paragraph , point 9 .
 ( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition 1970 ( I ), p. 96 .


title: Case C-505/15 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2015 by Siderurgica Latina Martin SpA (SLM) against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Joined Cases T-389/10 and T-419/10

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/21

         Appeal brought on 23 September 2015 by Siderurgica Latina Martin SpA (SLM) against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Joined Cases T-389/10 and T-419/10
   (Case C-505/15 P)
   (2015/C 406/22)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Siderurgica Latina Martin SpA (SLM) (represented by: G. Belotti and P. Ziotti, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               reduce the fine imposed on SLM on its own account and as a result of its joint liability, primarily taking into account: (i) the evidence produced in the proceedings at first instance; (ii) the sanctioning Guidelines in force at the time of the alleged events; and (iii) the marginal role played by the appellant and the shorter period of its participation in the cartel which, for SLM, started at the end of 1999, the only date for which there is consistent indisputable evidence available to support allegations of such participation;

               —

               grant the appellant fair compensation for the administrative delays which characterised the Commission’s management of the leniency application, an issue which was totally neglected by the General Court;

               —

               grant the appellant leniency for its timely admissions;

               —

               grant the appellant fair compensation for the procedural delays;

               —

               in any event: order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   [SLM] raises, in essence, [six] grounds of appeal, intended to show that the General Court:

               —

               in a way that was inconsistent with the evidence produced, insufficiently redefined the fine for the appellant, thereby infringing Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights [of the European Union] and the established principles of EU law on the subject of the proportionality of antitrust sanctions as well as the duty to state reasons;

               —

               by not applying the sanctioning Guidelines which were in force at the time of the events in question, infringed the EU legislation on the subject of the non-retroactivity of unfavourable criminal law, in particular Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

               —

               did not fully exercise its power of judicial review, thereby also infringing Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, with a manifest misgovernment of the inconsistent evidence produced, bias, and a failure to state reasons;

               —

               neglected to take a position on the maladministration by the Commission complained of as a result of the delays in its management of the leniency application, to which the Commission failed to respond until six years after its submission;

               —

               dismissed the distinctiveness of the appellant’s leniency application, adding to the paradoxical and manifestly unfair finding that only the creators of a cartel could benefit from reduced sanctions for their offers of cooperation, as they have valuable evidence which other undertakings with marginal roles in the cartel cannot have;

               —

               by taking 5 years to reach a decision, infringed Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which guarantees a person’s right to have his case dealt with within a reasonable time.


title: Case C-301/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 February 2009 — Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Directive 2006/24/EC — Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services — Choice of legal basis)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 February 2009 — Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-301/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 2006/24/EC - Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services - Choice of legal basis)
   (2009/C 82/03)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, acting as Agent, E. Fitzsimons, D. Barniville and A. Collins SC)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba, acting as Agent)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: H. Duintjer Tebbens, M. Dean and A. Auersperger Matić, and subsequently by the latter two and K. Bradley, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-C. Piris, J. Schutte and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull and J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. ten Dam and C. Wissels, acting as Agents), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Docksey, R. Troosters and C. O'Reilly, acting as Agents), European Data Protection Supervisor (represented by: H. Hijmans, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Annulment of Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ L 105, p. 54) — Choice of legal basis
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Commission of the European Communities and the European Data Protection Supervisor to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.


title: Case C-339/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 7 June 2017 — Verein für lauteren Wettbewerb e.V. v Princesport GmbH

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 7 June 2017 — Verein für lauteren Wettbewerb e.V. v Princesport GmbH
   (Case C-339/17)
   (2017/C 283/32)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Verein für lauteren Wettbewerb e.V.

      Defendant: Princesport GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it is mandatory to clarify that the product is a pure textile product exclusively composed of the same fibre?

               2.

               Is use of one of the three terms mentioned in Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011, namely ‘100 %’, ‘pure’ or ‘all’, mandatory or is this merely an option, and not an obligation, for such products?

               3.

               Does the obligation under Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 to label a textile product or to mark it with the name and percentage by weight of all constituent fibres also apply to pure textile products coming under Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products and repealing Council Directive 73/44/EEC and Directives 96/73/EC and 2008/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 272, p. 1).


title: Case C-599/14 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2014 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 16 October 2014 in joined Cases T-208/11 and T-508/11: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) v Council of the European Union

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/6

         Appeal brought on 19 December 2014 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 16 October 2014 in joined Cases T-208/11 and T-508/11: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-599/14 P)
   (2015/C 089/07)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, E. Finnegan, and G. Etienne, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the contested judgment;

               —

               give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal and to dismiss the Applications;
               and

               —

               order the Applicant in Joined Cases T-208/11 and T-508/11 to pay the costs of the Council arising from that case and from the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the contested judgment the General Court annulled the listing of LTTE purely for reasons related to the procedure used for their adoption. The Council submits that the General Court erred on the following points:
   First plea: The General Court wrongly held that the Council must demonstrate in the statement of reasons that it has verified that the activity of the listing authority in the third state is carried out with sufficient safeguards. Although the Council accepts that the activity of the competent authority in a third state must be framed within legislation and practice that respects the fundamental rights of those affected by it, it submits that the General Court errs in law by requiring this information to be included in the statement of reasons.
   Second plea: The General Court erred in law in its assessment of the Council’s use of information in the public domain. Moreover, the General Court was wrong to dismiss the use by the Council of open source material. The General Court errs further in reasoning that the Council should have asked a competent authority to investigate the press items referred to in the statement of reasons. Finally, the General Court errs in concluding that its refusal to uphold the Council’s reliance on open source material should result in the annulment of the contested decision.
   Third plea: the General Court erred by not concluding that the listing could stand on the basis of the 2001 UK Proscription Order. The General Court’s interpretation, apart from being not warranted in law, has the consequence that an entity could obstruct its listing under CP931 by refusing to contest its listing or proscription in the Member State from where the decision under Article 1(4) of CP931 emanates. In addition, the General Court’s reasoning is not compatible with the judgment in Kadi II.


title: Case T-423/04: Action brought on 8 October 2004 by Bunker & BKR, S.L. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/24

         Action brought on 8 October 2004 by Bunker & BKR, S.L. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-423/04)
   (2004/C 314/58)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 October 2004 by Bunker & BKR, S.L., established in Almansa (Spain), represented by José Enrique Astiz Suárez, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               vary the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 June 2004 in Case R 458/2002-4 as regards its findings as to the similarity of the signs and the goods, ordering that the opposition be rejected and the application granted in respect of all the goods for which protection is sought; and

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision and refer the case back to the opposition division in order that a new and accurate comparison of the remaining signs may be carried out, regard being had to the visual and phonetic differences between ‘BOOTS & SHOES B.K.R. MADE IN SPAIN’ and ‘BK RODS’ and to their compatibility on the market, there being no risk that consumers associate them as regards the origin and quality of the goods which they designate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               CALZADOS BUNKER, S.A. (ownership in the application was subsequently transferred to the applicant).

               Community trade mark sought:

               Figurative mark comprising the initials ‘BKR’ set in a diamond shape, with the words ‘Boots & Shoes — Made in Spain’ — Application No 649.756 for goods in classes 18 and 25 and services in class 39.

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               MARINE STOCK LIMITED.

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Various national trade marks, including the Austrian word mark ‘BK RODS’ (No 149.254) for goods in class 25 (clothing and footwear). The opposition was directed against all the goods and services covered by the Community trade-mark application at issue in the proceedings.

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition upheld in respect of the goods in class 25 and rejected in respect of goods in class 18 and services in class 39.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissed the appeal.


title: Case C-280/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret by order of that court of 25 June 2004 in the case of Jyske Finans against Skatteministeriet

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret by order of that court of 25 June 2004 in the case of Jyske Finans against Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-280/04)
   (2004/C 228/51)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Vestre Landsret (Western Regional Court) (Denmark) of 25 June 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 29 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Jyske Finans against Skatteministeriet (Finance Ministry) on the following questions:

               1.

               Must Article 13.B(c), in conjunction with Articles 2(1) and 11.A(1)(a), of the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC (1) be construed as precluding a Member State from maintaining a legal situation under its law on value added tax pursuant to which a taxable person who has introduced capital items to a significant extent into his business assets is, in contrast to second-hand car dealers and other traders who sell second-hand cars, liable to VAT on the sale of those capital items, even in the case where the items were purchased from taxable persons who did not declare tax on the price of the items, with the result that there was no possibility of deducting VAT at the time of acquisition?

               2.

               Must Article 26a.A(e) of the Sixth VAT Directive be construed as meaning that the term ‘taxable dealer’ covers only persons whose principal activity consists in the purchase and sale of second-hand goods in cases where the second-hand goods in question are acquired with the sole or principal purpose of obtaining a financial profit on their resale, or does that term also cover persons who normally dispose of those goods by sale at the end of a leasing period as a subsidiary link in the overall economic leasing activity under the circumstances outlined above?

      (1)  Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1, corrigendum at OJ 1977 L 149, p. 26).


title: Case C-46/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ankenævnet for Statens Uddannelsesstøtte — Denmark) — LN v Styrelsen for Videregående Uddannelser og Uddannelsesstøtte (Citizenship of the Union — Freedom of movement for workers — Principle of equal treatment — Article 45(2) TFEU — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Article 7(2) — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 24(1) and (2) — Derogation from the principle of equal treatment for maintenance aid for studies consisting in student grants or student loans — European Union citizen studying in a host Member State — Paid employment prior to and subsequent to the start of studies — Principal objective of the person concerned at the time of entry on the territory of the host Member State — Effect on his classification as worker and on his entitlement to student grants)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/18

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ankenævnet for Statens Uddannelsesstøtte — Denmark) — LN v Styrelsen for Videregående Uddannelser og Uddannelsesstøtte
   (Case C-46/12) (1)

   (Citizenship of the Union - Freedom of movement for workers - Principle of equal treatment - Article 45(2) TFEU - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Article 7(2) - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 24(1) and (2) - Derogation from the principle of equal treatment for maintenance aid for studies consisting in student grants or student loans - European Union citizen studying in a host Member State - Paid employment prior to and subsequent to the start of studies - Principal objective of the person concerned at the time of entry on the territory of the host Member State - Effect on his classification as worker and on his entitlement to student grants)
   2013/C 114/26
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Ankenævnet for Statens Uddannelsesstøtte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: LN

      Defendant: Styrelsen for Videregående Uddannelser og Uddannelsesstøtte

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Ankenævnet for Uddannelsesstøtten — Interpretation of Article 7(1)(c), read in conjunction with Article 24(2), of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Equal treatment for citizens of the Union — Legislation of a Member State providing for the possibility for citizens of the Union to receive education assistance while they are employed or self-employed workers in that Member State — Rejection of an application for a grant made by a citizen of the Union who was an employed worker in the host Member State in the case where his principal purpose in coming to that Member State was to follow a course of study there

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 7(1)(c) and 24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a European Union citizen who pursues a course of studies in a host Member State whilst at the same time pursuing effective and genuine employment activities such as to confer on him the status of ‘worker’ within the meaning of Article 45 TFEU may not be refused maintenance aid for studies which is granted to the nationals of that Member State. It is for the national court to make the necessary findings of fact in order to ascertain whether the employment activities of the applicant in the main proceedings are sufficient to confer that status on him. The fact that the person entered the territory of the host Member State with the principal intention of pursuing a course of study is not relevant for determining whether he is a ‘worker’ within the meaning of Article 45 TFEU and, accordingly, whether he is entitled to that aid under the same terms as a national of the host Member State under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case T-445/11: Action brought on 12 August 2011 — Charron Inox and Almet v Commission

text:
               1.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 290/18

         Action brought on 12 August 2011 — Charron Inox and Almet v Commission
   (Case T-445/11)
   2011/C 290/26
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Charron Inox (Marseille, France) and Almet (Satolas-et-Bonce, France) (represented by: P.-O. Koubi-Flotte, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               first, annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 627/2011 of 27 June 2011;

               —

               in the alternative, acknowledge the fault of the Commission which did not provide for a sufficient period of time between the publication of Commission Regulation (EU) No 627/2011 of 27 June 2011 and its entry into force, and award the following sums in damages to the applicant companies:

                           —

                           with regard to the damage caused:

                                       —

                                       for the company CHARRON: EUR 123 297,69;

                                       —

                                       for the company ALMET: EUR 384 210;

                           —

                           with regard to the indemnifiable loss of profit:

                                       —

                                       for the company CHARRON, with regard to the contract concluded with the company SURAJ, the sum of USD 78 051,76, or EUR 55 221,57;

                                       —

                                       for the company ALMET, with regard to the contract concluded with the company SURAJ, the sum of USD 69 059,18 or EUR 48 827,61 as at the current rate;

               —

               in the further alternative, acknowledge the no-fault liability of the Commission which did not provide for a sufficient period of time between the publication of Commission Regulation (EU) No 627/2011 of 27 June 2011 and its entry into force, and award the following sums in damages to the applicant companies:

                           —

                           with regard to the damage caused:

                                       —

                                       for the company CHARRON: EUR 123 297,69;

                                       —

                                       for the company ALMET: EUR 384 210;

                           —

                           with regard to the indemnifiable loss of profit:

                                       —

                                       for the company CHARRON, with regard to the contract concluded with the company SURAJ, the sum of USD 78 051,76, or EUR 55 221,57;

                                       —

                                       for the company ALMET, with regard to the contract concluded with the company SURAJ, the sum of USD 69 059,18 or EUR 48 827,61 as at the current rate;

               —

               in any case, order the European Commission to pay the costs and the sum of EUR 10 000 as a contribution to the applicant companies’ defence costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea, alleging serious inadequacies in the findings of the Commission before adoption of its decision such as to call into question the reliability of the facts established.

               2.

               Second plea, alleging the failure to respect the principle of legitimate expectations, in so far as the immediate entry into force of the contested regulation meant that the applicants could not adapt their practices.