title: Case C-138/15 P: Appeal brought on 23 March 2015 by Teva Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 22 January 2015 in Case T-140/12: Teva Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV v European Medecines Agency (EMA)

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/3

         Appeal brought on 23 March 2015 by Teva Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 22 January 2015 in Case T-140/12: Teva Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV v European Medecines Agency (EMA)
   (Case C-138/15 P)
   (2015/C 190/03)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Teva Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV (represented by: G. Morgan, Solicitor, K. Bacon, Barrister and E.S. Mackenzie, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court;

               —

               Annul the decision of the EMA, contained in its letter of 24 January 2012, refusing to validate the appellant’s application for a marketing authorization;

               —

               Order the EMA to pay the costs of the Appellants.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellants advance one ground of appeal, which is that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (1). Three distinct errors of law are alleged. First, it is alleged that the General Court misinterpreted Article 8(3) read together with Article 8(1), in that it failed to appreciate that a second similar orphan product authorised under an Article 8(3) derogation cannot attract the reward of market exclusivity that is provided for the first orphan product under Article 8(1).
   Second, it erred in concluding that its interpretation of Article 8 does not have the effect of extending the market exclusively attaching to the first product.
   Third, the General Court incorrectly described and thus failed properly to address the appellant’s alternative case in respect of the original ground for annulment, which was that even if the second product did in principle benefit from its own period of market exclusivity, that exclusivity should not operate to exclude from the market a generic version of the first product.
   The appellant requests that the Court of Justice give final judgment annulling the contested decision.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1.


title: Case T-592/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/16

         Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-592/14)
   2014/C 361/22
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               in consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation of EUR 10  000 for all the damage suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are unlawful, in so far as they (i) infringe the obligation to state reasons laid down by Articles 296 TFEU and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and (ii) infringe the applicant’s right to property laid down by Article 1 of the Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and infringe the right to respect for his good name and reputation, provided for in Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant has suffered damage as a direct causal link to the measures taken by the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that a European Union regime of strict liability exists.


title: Case T-319/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Drogenhilfe Köln Projekt v OHIM (Rauschbrille) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Rauschbrille — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Drogenhilfe Köln Projekt v OHIM (Rauschbrille)
   (Case T-319/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Rauschbrille - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 190/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Drogenhilfe Köln Projekt gGmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: V. Schoene, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2014 (Case R 1356/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Rauschbrille as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Drogenhilfe Köln Projekt gGmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.


title: Case T-203/13 P: Appeal brought on 8 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 January 2013 in Case F-92/12, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/52

         Appeal brought on 8 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 January 2013 in Case F-92/12, Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-203/13 P)
   2013/C 156/95
   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 by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul in its entirety, without any exception, the order under appeal;

               —

               Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 January 2013 in Case F-92/12 Marcuccio v Commission rejecting as manifestly inadmissible an action for annulment of the decision of the European Commission to withhold certain amounts from the appellant’s invalidity allowance for the months of October, November and December 2011 and for reimbursement of the sums withheld.
   In the order under appeal, the Tribunal stated that the firm of the appellant’s representative which appears at the end of the document sent by fax on 5 September 2012 was not the same as the firm which appears on the application received by post on 13 September 2012.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant alleges absolute failure to state reasons, by reason inter alia of failure to make preliminary inquiries, self-evident, tautologous and arbitrary reasoning, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts and an error of law, by reason inter alia of manifest failure properly to appraise the facts.


title: Case C-36/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/100/EEC — Copyright — Rental and lending right — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-36/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/100/EEC - Copyright - Rental and lending right - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 326/15)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.R. Vidal Puig and W. Wils, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: I. del Cuvillo Contreras, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 1 and 5 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by exempting almost all, if not all, categories of establishments undertaking the public lending of works protected by copyright from the obligation to pay remuneration to authors for the lending carried out, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property;

               2)

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69 of 19.03.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  6 October 2005  in Case C-429/04:  Commission of the European Communities  v  Kingdom of Belgium  (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/96/EC — Harmonised requirements and procedures for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 6 October 2005
   in Case C-429/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
       (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/96/EC - Harmonised requirements and procedures for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 296/14)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-429/04: action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC brought on the 6 October 2004,
         Commission of the European Communities
       (Agents: K. Simonsson and W. Wils) v
         Kingdom of Belgium
       (Agents: D. Haven and M. Wimmer), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, C Gulmann and G. Arestis (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: C. Stix-Hackl, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on the 6 October 2005 in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2001/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001 establishing harmonised requirements and procedures for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under this directive.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004


title: Case T-423/12: Action brought on 27 September 2012 — Skype v OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (skype)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/36

         Action brought on 27 September 2012 — Skype v OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (skype)
   (Case T-423/12)
   2012/C 355/75
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Skype (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor, J. Schmitt, lawyer, and J. Mellor, QC)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom); and Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 July 2012 in case R 1561/2010-4; and

               —

               Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘skype’, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 4546248

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 3203411 for the word mark ‘SKY’, for inter alia goods and services in classes 9, 38, 41 and 42; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2302176 E for the word mark ‘SKY’, for inter alia goods and services in classes 16, 35 and 38; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2302176 B for the word mark ‘SKY’, for inter alia goods and services in classes 9, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 1178409 of the figurative mark ‘sky’, for inter alia goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 1178540 of the figurative mark ‘sky’, for inter alia goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 3166337 of the figurative mark ‘sky’, for inter alia goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 3203619 of the figurative mark ‘sky’, for inter alia goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42; United Kingdom trade mark ‘SKY’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 38, 41 and 42; Earlier non-registered trade mark, trade name and company name ‘SKY’ used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 38, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods and services

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Case C-6/07: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/74/EC — Protection of workers — Insolvency of employer)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/13

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-6/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/74/EC - Protection of workers - Insolvency of employer)
   (2008/C 22/25)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56 of 10.3.2007.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2002 in Case C-158/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Circuit Court, County of Cork): Catherine Withers v Samantha Delaney, Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer which may be clearly deduced from existing case-law — Approximation of laws — Directives 72/166/EEC and 84/5/EEC — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles — Injury caused to passengers)

text:
C 305/8                     EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          7.12.2002
                        ORDER OF THE COURT                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT
                              (First Chamber)
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                           of 14 October 2002
                                                                                of 8 October 2002
in Case C-158/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Circuit Court, County of Cork): Catherine Withers v
                                                                                in Case C-190/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
Samantha Delaney, Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland
                                                                                the Giudice di pace de Genova-Voltri): Viacom Outdoor
                                  (MIBI) (1)
                                                                                Srl v Giotto Immobilier SARL ( 1)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer
which may be clearly deduced from existing case-law —                                 (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)
Approximation of laws — Directives 72/166/EEC and 84/
5/EEC — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in                                                    (2002/C 305/12)
    respect of motor vehicles — Injury caused to passengers)
                              (2002/C 305/11)                                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
                       (Language of the case: English)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                       in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                In Case C-190/02: Reference to the Court, under Article 234
In Case C-158/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                                EC, by the Giudice di Pace of Genoa-Voltri (Italy) for a
by the Circuit Court, County of Cork (Ireland), for a preliminary
                                                                                preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                                court between Viacom Outdoor Srl and Giotto Immobilier
Catherine Withers and Samantha Delaney, Motor Insurers
                                                                                SARL, on the interpretation of Articles 2 EC; 3(1)(a), (b) and
Bureau of Ireland (MIBI), on the interpretation of Council Direc-
                                                                                (c) EC; 23 EC; 27(a), (b) and (d) EC; 31(1) and (3) EC; 49 EC;
tive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the
                                                                                50 EC; 81 EC; 82 EC; 86 EC and 87 EC, the Court
laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil
                                                                                (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the
                                                                                Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber,
enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability
                                                                                Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
(OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360), and of Second
                                                                                8 October 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor                 The reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Giudice di
vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17), the Court (First Chamber), compo-                 Pace of Genoa-Voltri by order of 9 April 2002 is inadmissible.
sed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann(Rapporte-
ur) and A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, having informed the court of referral that the Court                  (1 ) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.
proposed to give its decision by reasoned order in accordance
with Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure, having invited the
persons referred to in Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court
of Justice to submit any observations which they might wish to
make in that regard, has made an order on 14 October 2002,
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approxi-                    Gerichtshof (Republic of Austria) by order of that Court
mation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against            of 11 July 2002 in the matter of the care of the minor Nils
civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforce-                                 Laurin Effing
ment of the obligation to insure against such liability, and Second
Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approxi-
                                                                                (Case C-302/02)
mation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against
civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles are to be interpreted
as meaning that theydo not precludea Member Statefrom maintaining                                          (2002/C 305/13)
national legislation which does not require compulsory insurance
against civil liability arising from the use of motor vehicles to cover
personal injuries to passengers carried in a part of the vehicle other than
a large public service vehicle, unless that part of the vehicle was designed     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
and constructed with seating accommodation for passengers.                       European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
                                                                                (Republic of Austria) (Supreme Court of Justice) of 11 July
                                                                                2002, received at the Court Registry on 26 August 2002, for
( 1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.
                                                                                a preliminary ruling in the matter of the care of the minor Nils
                                                                                Laurin Effing on the following question:


title: Case T-22/16: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções and Gomes de Azevedo v ECB (Action for failure to act, for annulment and for damages — Economic and monetary policy — Supervision of credit institutions — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering — Corrective measures — No invitation to act — Lack of precision in the application — Act not open to challenge — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/44

         Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções and Gomes de Azevedo v ECB
   (Case T-22/16) (1)

   ((Action for failure to act, for annulment and for damages - Economic and monetary policy - Supervision of credit institutions - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering - Corrective measures - No invitation to act - Lack of precision in the application - Act not open to challenge - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2017/C 144/60)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicants: Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções, Lda (Lisbon, Portugal), Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo (Lisbon), Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo (Lisbon), Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo (Lisbon) (represented by: M. Ribeiro, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: A. Karpf, P. Ferreira Jorge and K. Kaiser, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, an application based on Article 265 TFEU and seeking a declaration that the ECB illegally failed to take action against Portuguese credit institutions within the context of the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering, secondly, an application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the act by which the ECB returned to the applicants the invitation to act which they had sent to it, and, thirdly, an application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicants as a result of that failure to act.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Comprojecto — Projectos e Construções, Lda, Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo, Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo and Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.


title: Case C-11/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Aue, Zweigstelle Stollberg (Germany) lodged on 10 January 2017 — Thomas Hübner v LVM Lebensversicherungs AG

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Aue, Zweigstelle Stollberg (Germany) lodged on 10 January 2017 — Thomas Hübner v LVM Lebensversicherungs AG
   (Case C-11/17)
   (2017/C 112/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Aue, Zweigstelle Stollberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Thomas Hübner

      Defendant: LVM Lebensversicherungs AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Point A of Annex II of Council Directive 92/96/EEC (1) of 10 November 1992 [read in conjunction with] the third subparagraph of Article 15(1) [of Directive 90/619/EEC] (2) be interpreted as meaning that a consumer is entitled to cancel a life assurance or pension insurance policy at any time during the entire payment period thereof, if he has paid into the policy for several years on the basis of the contract, unaware of his right of cancellation in relation to that contract owing to the failure of the life assurance or pension insurance undertaking to give proper notice thereof?

               2.

               Does a provision of national law, under which, on grounds of good faith, a consumer’s right of cancellation is considered to be forfeit where a policy holder who was unaware of his right to cancel a contract continues to make payments under that contract until the time when he becomes aware of that right, comply with the above directive?

      (1)  Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (OJ 1990 L 330, p. 50).


title: Case C-481/15: Order of the President of the Eighth of the Court of 11 May 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/24

         Order of the President of the Eighth of the Court of 11 May 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-481/15) (1)

   (2016/C 279/33)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.


title: Action brought on 18 April 1997 by Salomon SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-123/97)

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 199/31
steelworks      and   rolling     mills     amounts      to   serious      1 590 000 000 ( ECU 118 000 000 ) to be compatible with
discrimination against the applicant, whose production                     the common market .
operations are based on a single working shift per day, by
contrast with steel mills which average three shifts daily.
Furthermore, the regularity of its production has been                     This action challenges the legal assessment from the
impaired by measures adopted by the local authorities                      standpoint of Article 92 et seq of the EC Treaty, and
prohibiting night-time production operations since, having                 challenges the Commission's decision inasmuch as it
regard to the cost of electricity, those hours are the most                confirms the payment of OS 1 273 000 000 ( ECU
economic .                                                                 95 000 000 ) already conditionally approved by the
                                                                           Commission and grants further aid of OS 317 000 000
(') Commission Decision No 3855/91 /ECSC of 27 November                    ( ECU 23 000 000 ). It also challenges the undertakings and
    1991 establishing Community rules for aid to the steel                 conditions on the part of the Austrian authorities laid
    industry ( OJ No L 362 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 57 ).                     down in Article 2 of the decision in that they are not
                                                                           proportionate to the amount of the aid granted and thus
                                                                           infringe the rules laid down by the Commission itself in its
                                                                           ' Community Guidelines on State Aid for Rescuing and
                                                                           Restructuring Firms in Difficulty' ( 1 ).
Action brought on 18 April 1997 by Salomon SA against                      In support of its action, the applicant maintains that there
        the Commission of the European Communities                         has been :
                        ( Case T-123/97 )
                          ( 97/C 199/78 )
                                                                           — a      manifest error of assessment inasmuch        as the
                                                                                Commission held the general conditions               for
                 (Language of the case: French)                                 authorizing payment of aid to have been satisfied,
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                           — a manifest error of assessment and infringement of
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                                Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty in that the aid
Instance of the European Communities on 18 April 1997
                                                                                granted by the Austrian Government:
by Salomon SA, whose registered office is at Pringy
( France ), represented by Loraine Donnedieu de Vabres and
Jean-Pierre Jouyet, of the Paris Bar, with an address for                      — are not capable of restoring the viability of HTM
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,                                 within a reasonable time,
31 Grand-Rue .
                                                                               — are not capable of preventing               unjustified
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                         distortions of competition, and
— annul Commission Decision 97/8 1 /EC of 30 luly                              — are disproportionate in relation to the costs and
     1996 ,                                                                          advantages of the restructuring,
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                           — a manifest error of assessment and infringement of
                                                                                Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                               — as regards the implementation of the restructuring
Austria Tabakwerke AG ('AT') is a public holding                                     plan and compliance with the conditions imposed,
company that is 100% owned by the Republic of Austria .
Head Tyrolia Mares ('HTM ') is an Austrian holding
company which groups together undertakings which                               — in that the Commission will not be in a position to
manufacture and market sports equipment, especially for                              exercise its supervision;
winter sports, tennis and diving.
                                                                           — infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty in that
The applicant is a direct competitor of HTM in the                              the Commission has not stated sufficient reasons for
markets for winter sports ( skis, bindings and ski boots ),                     its decision .
sports shoes and walking boots .
                                                                           (') OJ No C 368 , 23 . 12 . 1994 , p . 12 .
On 30 July 1996, the Commission declared the whole of
the aid already granted, or remaining to be granted, by AT
to HTM in the form of capital injections of OS


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 November 2004 in Case T-176/01: Ferriere Nord SpA v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection — Steel undertaking — Products coming under the EC Treaty — Approved aid scheme — New aid — Initiation of the formal procedure — Time-limits — Rights of the defence — Legitimate expectation — Statement of reasons — Applicability ratione temporis of the Community guidelines — Environmental objective of the investment)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/20

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 18 November 2004
   in Case T-176/01: Ferriere Nord SpA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection - Steel undertaking - Products coming under the EC Treaty - Approved aid scheme - New aid - Initiation of the formal procedure - Time-limits - Rights of the defence - Legitimate expectation - Statement of reasons - Applicability ratione temporis of the Community guidelines - Environmental objective of the investment)
   (2005/C 19/43)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-176/01: Ferriere Nord SpA, established in Osoppo (Italy), represented by W. Viscardini Donà and G. Donà, lawyers, supported by Italian Republic (Agents: initially U. Leanza, acting as Agent, and subsequently I. Braguglia and M. Fiorilli, avvocati dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg), against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Bucci, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – application for, first, annulment of Commission Decision 2001/829/EC, ECSC of 28 March 2001 on the State aid which Italy is planning to grant to Ferriere Nord SpA (OJ 2001 L 310, p. 22) and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly sustained by the applicant following the adoption of that decision – the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.


title: Case C-374/01: Action brought on 27 September 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
10.11.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 317/21
Action brought on 24 September 2001 by the Com-                           The Commission of the European Communities claims that
   mission of the European Communities against Ireland                    the Court should:
                           (Case C-365/01)                                —     Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Council Directive 98/8/EC (1) of the European Parliament
                           (2001/C 317/38)                                      and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the
                                                                                placing of biocidal products on the market, or at least by
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                       failing to communicate them to the Commission, the
Justice of the European Communities on 24 September 2001                        Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented                      obligations under that directive.
by Marie Wolfcarius, acting as agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.                                                    —     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations
      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Commission Directive 1999/47/EC(1) of 21 May 1999                   The mandatory nature of the third paragraph of Article 249
      adapting for the second time to technical progress                  EC and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC requires that the
      Council Directive 94/55/EC on the approximation of the              Member States adopt the measures necessary to implement
      laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of           directives addressed to them by the deadline allowed them for
      dangerous goods by road, or in any event by failing to              that purpose. The deadline in question expired on 14 May
      inform the Commission of those measures, Ireland has                1998 without the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg having
      failed to fulfil its obligations under this Directive               adopted the necessary measures.
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 123 of 24.4.1998, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the             Action brought on 27 September 2001 by the Com-
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period             mission of the European Communities against the United
expired on 1 July 1999 without Ireland having enacted the                                             Kingdom
provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred to
in the conclusions of the Commission.
                                                                                (Case C-374/01)
(1) OJ L 169, 5.7.1999, p. 1.                                                                     (2001/C 317/40)
                                                                          An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 Septem-
                                                                          ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 26 September 2001 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Grand
                       Duchy of Luxembourg                                The Applicant requests that the Court should:
                           (Case C-372/01)                                —     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary before 14 May 2000
                                                                                to comply with European Parliament and Council Direc-
                           (2001/C 317/39)                                      tive 98/8/EC of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing
                                                                                of biocidal products on the market (1), or in any event by
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                             failing to communicate them to the Commission, the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                    United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under
ties on 26 September 2001 by the Commission of the                              that Directive;
European Communities represented by M. Nolin, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                         —     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 317/22               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.11.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 28 September 2001 by the Com-
                                                                         mission of the European Communities against the
                                                                                Kingdom of Belgium
Article 249 EC under which a directive shall be binding as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the                                     (Case C-377/01)
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
expired on 14 May 2000 without the United Kingdom having
enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the directive
                                                                                (2001/C 317/42)
referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
(1) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1-63.                                        An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         28 September 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda,
                                                                         acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 28 September 2001 by the Com-
                                                                         The Commission claims that the Court should declare that:
   mission of the European Communities against Ireland
                          (Case C-376/01)                                —    by virtue of the failure of the competent Belgian auth-
                                                                              orities, whichever they may be, to adopt the measures
                          (2001/C 317/41)                                     necessary to ensure the transposition of Articles 5(c) and
                                                                              (e) and 6(1) of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) with regard to
                                                                              so-called ‘non-indigenous’ species covered by Directive
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                     79/409/EEC, where the transactions governed by the
Justice of the European Communities on 28 September 2001                      above mentioned provisions of the directive are not
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented                    import, export or transit, or if those measures have be on
by Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an address for                   adopted, by virtue of their failure to communicate them
service in Luxembourg.                                                        to the Commission, and
The Applicant requests that the Court should:                                 —     by virtue of the Federal State’s failure to adopt the
                                                                                provisions necessary to ensure the transposition of
—     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or                     Articles 5(c) and (e) and 6(1) of Directive
      administrative provisions necessary before 14 May 2000                        79/409/EEC with regard to the import, export and
      to comply with European Parliament and Council Direc-                         transit of so-called ‘non-indigenous’ species covered
      tive 98/8/EC of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing                       by Directive 79/409/EEC, where they are one of the
      of biocidal products on the market (1), or in any event by                    transactions governed by those provisions of the
      failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland                        directive, namely the: keeping of birds and eggs, and
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;                    the sale, transport for sale, keeping for sale and the
                                                                                offering for sale of live or dead birds and of any
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                               readily recognisable parts or derivatives of such
                                                                                birds, or, if those measures had been adopted, by
                                                                                virtue of its failure to communicate them to the
                                                                                Commission,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              —     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
Article 249 EC under which a directive shall be binding as to                       obligations under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by                       2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, and
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the                       in particular Articles 5(c) and (e) and 6(1) thereof,
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period                       inasmuch as those provisions have not been adopted
expired on 14 May 2000 without Ireland having enacted the                           by the competent Belgian authorities, or its obli-
provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred to                       gations under Article 18, inasmuch as those pro-
in the conclusions of the Commission.                                               visions, even if adopted, have not been communi-
                                                                                cated to the Commission by the competent Belgian
                                                                                authorities;
(1) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1-63.
                                                                         —    order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs


title: Case C-123/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of 12 March 2001 in the appeal concerning (1) Dr Karl Friedrich Strobl, (2) the Mayor of Salzburg, and (3) the land transfer agent of the Land of Salzburg

text:
19.5.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 150/15
—     Disregard of the principle of legality, of the duty to give a      Action brought on 19 March 2001 by the Commission of
      statement of reasons and of the audi alteram partem rule,          the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
      on account of the acceptance of documents drawn up
      after the adoption of the contested decision.
—     Failure to have regard to the obligation to provide a                                        (Case C-127/01)
      statement of reasons and violation of the effects attaching
      to a vacancy notice: the factual assessment carried out by
      the Court of First Instance concerning the qualifications
      and experience of Mr L.V. results in an error of law                                         (2001/C 150/29)
      consisting of the attribution to him of qualifications
      corresponding to the requirements of the vacancy notice.
      Thus, the Court of First Instance disregarded the effects          An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
      arising from a notice of vacancy.                                  the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 March
                                                                         2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
—     Failure to have regard to the notion of misuse of powers.          represented by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, and Maria
                                                                         Patakia, of its Legal Service.
—     Failure to have regard to Articles 7 and 27 of the Staff
      Regulations and to the principle of non-discrimination:
      since Mr L.V. did not possess the appropriate qualifi-
      cations, he was in any event incapable of being compared           The Commission claims that the Court should:
      with other candidates who did.
—     Failure to have regard to the principle of sound manage-           —     declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
      ment and proper administration, and breach of the                        Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
      obligation to provide a statement of reasons.                            regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                               comply fully with Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 Octo-
                                                                               ber 1998 (1) amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission
                                                                               to the occupation of road haulage operator and road
                                                                               passenger transport operator and mutual recognition
                                                                               of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal
                                                                               qualifications intended to facilitate for these operators
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                         the right to freedom of establishment in national and
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of 12                         international transport operations, the Hellenic Republic
March 2001 in the appeal concerning (1) Dr Karl Friedrich                      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
Strobl, (2) the Mayor of Salzburg, and (3) the land transfer
                 agent of the Land of Salzburg
                                                                         —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                        (Case C-123/01)
                        (2001/C 150/28)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
tungssenat Salzburg of 12 March 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 19 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the               The Member States are required by the binding character of
appeal concerning (1) Dr Karl Friedrich Strobl, (2) the Mayor            the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and Article 10 EC to
of Salzburg, and (3) the land transfer agent of the Land of              adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into national
Salzburg on the following question:                                      law before the expiry of the time-limit laid down for that
                                                                         purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be          the Commission. That time-limit expired on 1 October
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12, 36           1999 without the Hellenic Republic having notified to the
and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land              Commission the provisions transposing the directive in ques-
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGB1.                  tion into national law.
No. 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply
with a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the           (1) OJ L 277 of 14.10.1998.
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
case?


title: Case C-280/02: Action brought on 30 July 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 219/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       14.9.2002
purview of the Member States. However, the contested regu-              Action brought on 30 July 2002 by the Commission of
lation concerns, as evidenced by its title, exclusively adminis-         the European Communities against the French Republic
trative cooperation in the field of indirect taxation (VAT) in
the internal market and not the VAT system properly speaking.
                                                                                (Case C-280/02)
( 1) OJ 2002 L 128, p. 1.
                                                                                (2002/C 219/18)
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 July
Action brought on 29 July 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain                  2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   represented by M. Nolin, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                        service in Luxembourg.
                          (Case C-276/02)
                                                                        The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                          (2002/C 219/17)                               the Court should:
                                                                        —     Declare that, by not identifying certain areas as sensitive
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     areas with respect to eutrophication, in the catchment
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                  areas of Seine-Normandie, Loire-Bretagne, Artois-Picardie
Communities on 29 July 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain,                          and Rhône-Méditerranée-Corse, and not subjecting to
represented by Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del Estado,                   more stringent treatment discharges of urban waste water
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish                      from agglomerations with a population equivalent (p.e.)
Embassy, 4-6 boulevard E. Servais.                                            of more than 10 000 into sensitive areas or areas which
                                                                              should have been identified as sensitive, the French
                                                                              Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   Article 5(1) and (2) of and Annex II to Directive 91/271/
                                                                              EEC (1);
—     declare the decision of the Commission of 14 May 2002
      null and void in so far as the Commission therein declared        —     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
      that the continued failure of GEA (Grupo de Empresas
      Álvarez) to pay taxes and social security contributions
      amounts a grant of State aid incompatible with the
      common market, and
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
                                                                        —     Incomplete identification of sensitive areas: The French
                                                                              authorities wrongly limited themselves to identifying
                                                                              bodies of water where they consider eutrophication to be
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               established; they thus did not take account of the
                                                                              obligation also to identify as sensitive, in accordance with
                                                                              Annex II to the Directive, bodies of water ‘which in the
The only thing that has happened is the liquidation of an                     near future may become eutrophic if protective action is
undertaking in crisis, preceded by a general procedure for the                not taken’. For that reason, or because eutrophication
suspension of payments. That procedure, initiated and directed                should already have been identified, the Commission
by the court, enables creditors to reach agreements with the                  considers that the French Republic has failed to identify,
debtor undertaking which, in comparison with an immediate                     in breach of its obligations pursuant to Article 5(1) of
liquidation, increase the likelihood of the undertaking’s recov-              and Annex II to the Directive:
ery and the payment of some of its debts. The same procedure
for the suspension of payments may, of course, be sought
and obtained by any competing undertakings which bring                        —     in Seine-Normandie: the Seine bay, the Seine and its
complaints, should they to find themselves in a situation of                        tributaries downstream from its confluence with the
cessation of payments. The Commission has thus failed to                            Andelle;
demonstrate that there has been any State aid subject to
Article 87 EC.
                                                                              —     in Loire-Bretagne: Lorient harbour, the Elorn estuary,
                                                                                the bay of Douarnenez, Concarneau bay, the Gulf of
                                                                                Morbihan, the bay of Vilaine and the Sèvre-Niortaise;
 ---pagebreak--- 14.9.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 219/11
       —     in Artois-Picardie: the coastal waters and, for main-        Removal from the register of Cases C-73/00, C-415/00,
             land waters, the hydrographic system between the               C-420/00, C-123/01, C-237/01, C-238/01 and C-15/02 ( 1)
             canalised Aa and the Escaut on the one hand and
             the Belgian border on the other hand, the Scarpe
             downstream from Arras, the Lens Canal downstream                                      (2002/C 219/20)
             from Lens and the whole of the Somme;
       —     in Rhône-Méditerranée-Corse: the River Vistre and
             Thau lake.                                                   By order of 28 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
—      Lack of more stringent treatment for urban waste water             register of Cases C-73/00, C-415/00, C-420/00, C-123/01,
       discharges with a population equivalent (p.e.) of more             C-237/01, C-238/01 et C-15/02 (Referral for a preliminary
       than 10 000: The French authorities had admitted that              ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg): Hans
       for 130 agglomerations the equipment for treating urban            Oppitz and Others v Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt
       waste water was not, by the deadline of 31 December                Salzburg and Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg.
       1998, in compliance with the requirements of the
       Directive. While those authorities, in their response to
       the reasoned opinion, specify that the discharges of some          (1 ) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000, OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001, OJ C 28 of
                                                                               27.1.2001, OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001, OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001, OJ
       of those 130 agglomerations are in fact now subject to
                                                                               C 227 of 11.8.2001, OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
       such treatment, only the agglomerations of Vichy, Aix en
       Provence and Mâcon can actually be removed from the
       list of the abovementioned 130 agglomerations. For
       others, the reply states that the necessary equipment will
       only come into service at a future date. That is the case
       for Boulogne-sur-mer (2005), Clermont-Ferrand (2004),
       Saint-Etienne (2005), Mulhouse (2003), Nancy (autumn
       2002), Dijon (2005), Montpellier (2004), Tarare (2003),
       Villefranche sur Saône (2004), Vitrolles (2005) and                        Removal from the register of Case C-128/01 ( 1)
       Auxerre (2004).
       The inadequate identification of sensitive areas has inevi-                                 (2002/C 219/21)
       tably resulted in the obligation in Article 5(2) of the
       Directive not being taken into account in the areas
       concerned.
                                                                          By order of 27 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
( 1) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21.5.1991 concerning urban           register of Case C-128/01: Commission of the European
     waste water treatment (OJ L 135 of 30.5.1991), p. 40.                Communities v Italian Republic.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
Removal from the register of Cases C-72/00, C-128/00
                          and C-319/00 ( 1)
                          (2002/C 219/19)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-143/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 219/22)
By order of 31 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Cases C-72/00, C-128/00 and C-319/00 (Referral
for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat
                                                                          By order of 7 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
Salzburg): Neubau Gesellschaft mbH and Others v Grundver-
                                                                          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
kehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg and Grundverkehrslan-
                                                                          register of Case C-143/01: Commission of the European
deskommission des Landes Salzburg.
                                                                          Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
( 1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000, OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000, OJ C 302 of
     21.10.2000.                                                          (1 ) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.


title: Case T-450/16: Action brought on 10 August 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Freunde)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/25

      Action brought on 10 August 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Freunde)
      (Case T-450/16)
      (2016/C 364/27)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Beste Freunde’ — Application for registration No 14 170 013

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 in Case R 93/2016-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-96/15: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2016 — Mozzett v EUIPO — di Lelio (Alfredo alla Scrofa) (EU trade mark — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — Figurative EU trade mark Alfredo alla Scrofa — Earlier national word mark L’ORIGINALE ALFREDO — Request for proof of genuine use — Article 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2016 — Mozzett v EUIPO — di Lelio (Alfredo alla Scrofa)
   (Case T-96/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - Figurative EU trade mark Alfredo alla Scrofa - Earlier national word mark L’ORIGINALE ALFREDO - Request for proof of genuine use - Article 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 305/41)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Mario Mozzetti (Rome, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ines di Lelio (Rome) (represented by: D. De Simone, G. Orsoni and R. Fecchio, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2014 (Case R 655/2014-1), relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Ms di Lelio and Mr Mozzetti.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mario Mozzetti to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.


title: Case C-44/07: Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-44/07) (1)

   (2008/C 142/36)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case T-744/14: Action brought on 3 November 2014  — Meta Group v Commission

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/30

         Action brought on 3 November 2014 — Meta Group v Commission
   (Case T-744/14)
   (2014/C 462/43)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Meta Group Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Bartolini and A. Formica, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               find that the Commission has failed to fulfil its financial obligations arising from the grant contracts mentioned below, totalling EUR 5 66  377,63, in respect of contributions due but unpaid, and also declare illegal the offset carried out in respect of the applicant’s claims;

               —

               consequently, order the Commission to pay the applicant that sum of EUR 5 66  377,63, together with default interest and reflecting monetary revaluation;

               —

               furthermore, order the Commission to pay compensation for damage caused to the applicant, in the amount of EUR 8 15  000 in total, or more should the Court deem it appropriate at the conclusion of the present proceedings, and also in respect of the serious loss resulting from the unlawfulness of the abovementioned offset.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The subject-matter of the present action concerns the Commission’s alleged breach of the contracts Take It Up (No 245637), BCreative (No 245599) and Ecolink+ (No 256224), concluded in the framework of the ‘Fifth and Sixth European Union Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development’.
   In support of its application, the applicant puts forward 10 pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea: failure by the Commission to comply with the contractual terms in determining the hourly cost of the contracted service providers (infringement of Article II.19.1(d) of Annex II to the grant contracts).

                           —

                           In determining the hourly cost of the contracted service providers, the Commission acted in breach of Article II.19.1(d) of Annex II, under which the costs of the contracted service providers, as professionals providing their services for the implementation of the project in receipt of subsidies, within the terms of the contracts concluded inter partes, must be determined in accordance with the [accounting] standards of the Member State in which the beneficiary carries on its activities.

               2.

               Second plea: failure by the Commission to comply with the contractual terms in determining the hourly cost of the contracted service providers (infringement of Article II.19.1(b) of Annex II to the grant contracts).

                           —

                           In determining the hourly cost of the contracted service providers, the Commission also acted in breach of Article II.19.1(b) to the grant contracts, under which the eligible costs must be determined in accordance with the general [accounting] standards in force when the contract was signed. In particular, the reference made by the Commission to the parameters specified for the ‘Marie Curie’ programmes is wholly inappropriate and arbitrary, since those parameters relate to rules which did not come into force until 2011 and which, in addition, apply exclusively to the FP7 (the Seventh EU Framework Programme), and which, in consequence, were not in force, as such, at the material time for the purposes of the present dispute.

               3.

               Third plea: failure by the Commission to comply with Article I.11 (‘Other Special Conditions’) of the grant contract for the Take it up project.

                           —

                           With specific regard to the CIP programme contracts and, in particular, the contract relating to the Take it up project, the Commission infringed Article I.11, given that it consistently failed to take any formal or implied decision rejecting the methodology proposed by META for the implementation of that contractual term.

               4.

               Fourth plea: failure by the Commission to comply with Article II.19.1(b) of Annex II to the grant contracts by classifying as a ‘subcontract’ the employment relationship of the experts who worked with the applicant company.

                           —

                           The Commission acted in further breach of Article II.19.1(b) in so far as it failed, wrongly, to apply, in the case of the experts employed by META to implement the projects in receipt of subsidies, the criteria and accounting standards for ‘intra muros consultants’, in accordance with the definition provided by the Commission itself in the Financial Guidelines of the Fifth and Sixth Framework Programme.

               5.

               Fifth plea: failure by the Commission to comply with Article II.19.1(b) of Annex II to the grant contracts as regards the recognition of indirect costs relating to the ‘in house consultants’.

                           —

                           The Commission acted in further breach of Article II.19.1(b) of Annex II, specifically as regards the application of the general accounting standards referred to in that provision, since it failed to respect the general standards applying to the classification of the indirect costs relating to the ‘in house consultants’.

               6.

               Sixth plea: infringement by the Commission of the rules and principles of EU law and the case-law of the Court of Justice and, in particular, breach of the principles of good faith, protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

                           —

                           The Commission’s inaction was liable to give rise to a legitimate expectation, on the part of the applicant, as to the correctness of the methodology proposed, so that subsequent acts of recovery/deduction of contributions due should be considered to have been adopted in breach of the principle of good faith in performing the contract.

               7.

               Seventh plea: infringement by the Commission of the rules set out in the Code of good administrative behaviour and, in particular, of the rules relating to proportionality, the right to information, the right to be heard and the duty to provide reasons for a decision.

                           —

                           The Commission failed to provide META with the requested information or an adequate explanation of decisions taken, and, in any event, adopted a disproportionate decision, given that all the objectives of the project were achieved on time by the applicant.

               8.

               Eighth plea: failure by the Commission to discharge its obligation to pay META the contributions provided for under the grant contracts for carrying out the projects financed.

                           —

                           The Commission was therefore in breach of the contractual obligation concerning the payment of the contributions due, under the grant contracts, in respect of META’s activity (in respect of which accounts were drawn up) for achieving the objectives set for the projects. Those unpaid contributions amounted to EUR 5 66  377,63.

               9.

               Ninth plea: infringement by the Commission of Article 80 of Regulation (EU) No 966/2012 concerning the offset carried out in relation to META’s claims.

                           —

                           The Commission acted in breach of the rule laid down in Article 80 of Regulation No 966/2012, which permits the offsetting of debts owed to the European institutions against the claims against those institutions only where those debts and claims are of a fixed amount, certain and due. Since the claims offset by the Commission are contested, they lack the requisite ‘certainty’.

               10.

               Tenth plea: concerning compensation for the financial loss suffered by the applicant.

                           —

                           The Commission’s breach of its contractual obligations resulted, moreover, in particularly serious and unfair harm to META, in the form of actual loss, amounting, on the basis of a report appended to the application, to EUR 8 15  000, in addition to the harm resulting from the offset unlawfully carried out by the Commission.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 27 November 1997 in Case T-224/95: Roger Tremblay and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Copyright - Rejection of a complaint - Enforcement of a judgment setting aside a decision - Partitioning of market - Statement of reasons - Misuse of powers)

text:
C 7/14                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                10. 1. 98
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 27 November 1997                                                    of 27 November 1997
in Case T-224/95: Roger Tremblay and Others v.                           in Case T-20/96: Stephen Pascall v. Commission of the
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                                         European Communities (1)
(Competition Ð Copyright Ð Rejection of a complaint Ð                    (Officials Ð Member of the temporary staff in the
Enforcement of a judgment setting aside a decision Ð                     scientific and technical services Ð Appointment to a post
Partitioning of market Ð Statement of reasons Ð Misuse                   covered by the operating budget Ð Withdrawal of a
                             of powers)                                  decision granting further advancement to a higher step on
                                                                                account of exceptional merit)
                            (98/C 7/46)
                                                                                (98/C 7/47)
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-224/95: Roger Tremblay, residing in Vernantes                  In Case T-20/96: Stephen Pascall, an official of the
(France), Harry Kestenberg, residing in Saint-AndreÂ-les-                Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Vergers (France), and Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de               Brussels, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry
Loisirs (SELL), established in Paris, represented by Jean                Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for                   address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz,                Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange, v.
4, rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon, supported by Music Users'                    Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Ana
Council of Europe (MUCE), established in Uxbridge                        Maria Alves Vieira) Ð application for annulment of the
(United Kingdom), represented by Jean-Louis Fourgoux,                    Commission's decision of 26 June 1995 withdrawing its
of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in                         decision of 18 October 1994 granting the applicant
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4, rue                    further advancement to a higher step Ð the Court of First
BeÂatrix de Bourbon, Associazione Italiana Imprenditori                  Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: C. W. Bellamy,
Locali da Ballo (SILB), established in Rome, represented                 President, and A. Kalogeropoulos and R. M. Moura
by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an                       Ramos, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     has given a judgment on 27 November 1997, in which it:
Pierrot Schiltz, 4, rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon, against the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                         1. Dismisses the action.
Giuliano Marenco and Guy Charrier), supported by The
French Republic (Agents: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and
Jean-Marc Belorgey), application, first, for annulment of                2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to
the Commission decision of 13 October 1995 rejecting the                     pay the costs of the applicant.
complaints made on 4 February 1986, in particular by
Messrs Tremblay and Kesterberg, pursuant to Article 3 (2)                (1) OJ C 108, 13. 4. 1996.
of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, first
Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the
Treaty (2), concerning the existence of market sharing and
the total partitioning of the market said to result
therefrom, as between the societies which manage
copyright in the various Member States and, secondly, an                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
order against the Commission requiring it to carry out the
investigations necessary in order to establish the existence                                   of 3 October 1997
of the restrictive agreement complained of Ð the Court of                in Case T-186/96: Mutual Aid Administration Services
First Instance of the European Communities (Third                            NV v. Commission of the European Communities (1)
Chamber), composed of C. W. Bellamy, President, A.
                                                                         (Tender for the transportation of free supplies of
Kalogeropoulos and J. D. Cooke, Judges, Registrar: M. A.
                                                                         agricultural products intended for the peoples of Armenia
Mair, Administrator, has given a judgment on
                                                                         and Azerbaijan Ð Refusal by the Commission to pay to
27 November 1997, in which it:
                                                                         the successful transportation tenderer the whole of the
                                                                         price claimed Ð Action for annulment Ð Action
1. Dismisses the action;                                                 constituting in actual fact an action for performance of a
                                                                         transportation contract Ð Manifest lack of jurisdiction of
                                                                         the Court of First Instance Ð Manifest inadmissibility of
2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs;                                                 the action for annulment)
                                                                                (98/C 7/48)
3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(1) OJ C 64, 2. 3. 1996.
(2) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1959Ð62, p. 87.
                                                                         In Case T-186/96: Mutual Aid Administration Services
                                                                         NV, established in Antwerp (Belgium), represented by Jan
                                                                         Tritsmans, of the Antwerp Bar, with an address for service


title: Case C-630/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 24 December 2010 — University of Queensland, CSL Ltd v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 24 December 2010 — University of Queensland, CSL Ltd v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
   (Case C-630/10)
   2011/C 89/19
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: University of Queensland, CSL Ltd

      Defendant: Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

      Questions referred

               1.

               Regulation 469/2009 (1) (the Regulation) recognises amongst the other purposes identified in the recitals, the need for the grant of an SPC by each of the Member States of the Community to holders of national or European patents to be under the same conditions, as indicated in recitals 7 and 8. In the absence of Community harmonisation of patent law, what is meant in Article 3(a) of the Regulation by ‘the product is protected by a basic patent in force’ and what are the criteria for deciding this?

               2.

               In a case like the present one involving a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient, are there further or different criteria for determining whether or not ‘the product is protected by a basic patent’ according to Article 3(a) of the Regulation and, if so, what are those further or different criteria?

               3.

               Is one of these further or different criteria whether the active ingredients are admixed together rather than being delivered in separate formulations but at the same time?

               4.

               For the purposes of Article 3(a), is a multi-disease vaccine comprising multiple antigens ‘protected by a basic patent’ if one antigen of the vaccine is ‘protected by the basic patent in force’?

               5.

               In a case like the present one involving a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient, is it relevant to the assessment of whether or not ‘the product is protected by a basic patent’ according to Article 3(a) that the basic patent is one of a family of patents based on the same original patent application and comprising a parent patent and two divisional patents which between them protect all the active ingredients in the medicinal product?

               6.

               In a case like the present one involving a basic patent with claims to ‘a process to obtain a product’ in the sense of Article l(c), does the ‘product’ of Article 3(a) have to be obtained directly by means of that process?

               7.

               Does the SPC Regulation and, in particular, Article 3(b), permit the grant of a Supplementary Protection Certificate for a single active ingredient where:

                           a)

                           a basic patent in force protects the single active ingredient within the meaning of Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation; and

                           b)

                           a medicinal product containing the single active ingredient together with one or more other active ingredients is the subject of a valid authorisation granted in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC (2) or 2001/82/EC (3) which is the first marketing authorization that places the single active ingredient on the market?

               8.

               Does the answer to Question 7 differ depending on whether the authorisation is for the single active ingredient admixed with the one or more other active ingredients rather than being delivered in separate formulations but at the same time?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (Codified version) (Text with EEA relevance)
   OJ L 152, p. 1

      (2)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use
   OJ L 311, p. 67

      (3)  Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products
   OJ L 311, p. 1


title: Case T-174/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Dieckerhoff Guss v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source — Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Fumus boni juris)

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/15

         Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Dieckerhoff Guss v Commission
   (Case T-174/14 R)
   ((Interim measures - State aid - National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source - Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Fumus boni juris))
   2014/C 329/19
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dieckerhoff Guss GmbH (Gevelsberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid concerning the German law on renewable energy.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The judgment in Case T-174/14 R Dieckerhoff Guss v Commission is set aside

               3.

               Costs are reserved.