title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 13 July 1995 in Case C-116/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Social Security Commissioner, London): Jennifer Meyers v. Adjudication Officer (Equal treatment for men and women - Directive 76/207/EEC - Conditions governing access to employment - Working conditions - Family credit)

text:
  14 . 10 . 95          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 268/3
  separate judgment or decree. It does not apply to the                proceedings or . . . an equivalent document ' within the
  situation where a defendant raises, as a pure defence, a claim       meaning ofArticle 27 (2) ofthe Convention of2 7 September
  which he allegedly has against the plaintiff. The defences           1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement ofJudgments in
  which may be raised and the conditions under which they              Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the
  may be raised are governed by national law.                          Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the
                                                                       Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
                                                                       Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
. C ) OJ No C 231 , 27 . 8 . 1993 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( Third Chamber)
                           of 13 July 1995
  in Case C-474/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
  the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Zwolle (Netherlands )):                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
        Hengst Import BV and Anna Maria Campese (')                                           (Fourth Chamber )
  (Brussels Convention — Article 27 (2) — Concept of                                            of 13 July 1995
  document instituting the proceedings or equivalent                   in Case C-l 16/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                               document)
                                                                       the Social Security Commissioner, London ): Jennifer
                            ( 95/C 268/05 )                                          Meyers v. Adjudication Officer ( ! )
                                                                       (Equal treatment for men and women — Directive
                                                                        76/207/EEC — Conditions governing access to
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)                           employment — Working conditions — Family credit)
                                                                                ( 95/C 268/06 )
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
  In Case C-474/93 : reference to the Court under the Protocol
  of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice         In Case C-l 16/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
  of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction               of the EC Treaty from the Social Security Commissioner,
  and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial             London, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
  Matters by the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Zwolle                    before that court between Jennifer Meyers and the
  ( Netherlands ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings          Adjudication Officer, on the interpretation of Council
  pending before that court between Hengst Import BV and               Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
  Anna Maria Campese on the interpretation of Article 27 ( 2 )         implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
  of the abovementioned Convention of 27 September 1968                and women as regards access to employment, vocational
   ( OJ No L 304, p. 36 ) as amended by the Convention of              training and promotion, and working conditions ( OJ No
  9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of                    L 39 , p. 40 ) — the Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of:
  Denmark , Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain            P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber,
  and Northern Ireland ( OJ No L 304, p. 1 and — amended                C. N. Kakouris and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
  text — p. 77) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:              Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
   C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de             Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which it
  Almeida (Rapporteur) and D. A. O. Edward, Judges; F. G.               rules :
  Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, for the Registrar, has
  given a judgment on 13 July 1995, in which it rules:
                                                                        a benefit with the characteristics and purpose of family
   the decreto ingiuntivo within the meaning ofBook IV ofthe            credit is concerned with both access to employment and
   Italian Code of Civil Procedure (Articles 633 to 656),               working conditions and falls, therefore, within the scope of
   together with the application instituting the proceedings,           Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
   must be regarded as 'the document which instituted                   implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
 ---pagebreak--- No C 268/4              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   14 . 10 . 95
and women as regards access to employment, vocational                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
training and promotion, and working conditions.                                                 ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 11 August 1995
( 1 ) OJ No C 174 , 26 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                        in Joined Cases C-367/93 to C-377/93 (references for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling from the Tariefcommissie): F. G. Roders
                                                                        BV and Others v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en
                                                                                Accijnzen (*)
                                                                        (Excise duties on wine — Discriminatory internal taxation
                                                                                — Benelux system)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                              95/C 268/08 )
                          ( Sixth Chamber)
                           of 13 July 1995                                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
in Case        C-216/94 : Commission of the             European
            Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium ( 1 )                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Failure to fulfil Treaty obligations — Directive 89/48/EEC                      published in the European Court Reports)
— Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on
completion ofprofessional education and training ofat least
                       three years ' duration)                          In Joined Cases C-367/93 to C-377/93 : references to the
                            ( 95/C 268/07 )
                                                                        Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty from the
                                                                        Tariefcommissie ( Administrative Court for Customs and
                                                                        Excise ), Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling in the
                 (Language of the case: Frencb)                         proceedings pending before that court between F. G. Roders
                                                                        BV ( C-367/93 to C-370/93 ), RSK Internationale
                                                                        Expeditieen Vervoeronderneming BV ( C-371/93 and
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            C-372/93 ), Damco van Swieten BV ( C-373/93 and
           published in the European Court Reports)                     C-377/93 ), VGL Internationale Expeditie BV ( C-374/93
                                                                        and C-375/93 ), Zaans Veem BV ( C-376/93 ) and Inspecteur
In Case C-216/94 : Commission of the European                           der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen — on the interpretation of
Communities ( agent: Marie-José Jonczy ) v. Kingdom of                  Article 95 of the EEC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),
Belgium ( agent: Jan Devadder ) — application for a                     composed of: F. A. Schockweiler, President of the Chamber,
declaration that, by not adopting within the prescribed                 P. J. G. Kapteyn, G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris and
period the measures necessary to comply with Council                    J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur ), Judges; G. Tesauro,
Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general                    Advocate-General; H. A. Rùhl , Principal Administrator, for
system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas                 the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 August 1995 , in
                                                                        which it rules that :
awarded on completion of professional education and
training of at least three years' duration ( OJ No L 19 , p . 16 ),
and, in the alternative, by not notifying such measures to the          1 , a Member State may not rely on Article 233 of the EEC
Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                  Treaty in order to avoid its obligations under Article 95
obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth                          of that Treaty where this is not indispensable for the
 Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler, President of                    good functioning of the Benelux system;
the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray
 ( Rapporteur ) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                      2 , the first paragraph of Article 95 of the EEC Treaty is to
judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which it rules:                                be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national
                                                                             court, having regard to the criteria identified by the
                                                                             Court of Justice, to assess whether:
 1 , by not adopting within the prescribed period the
      measures necessary to comply with Council Directive                    — products such as, on the one hand, red table wine,
       89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system                         quality red wines produced in specified regions,
      for the recognition of higher-education diplomas                           sherry, madeira and vermouth and, on the other
      awarded on completion of professional education and                        hand, still fruit wines whose alcoholic strength does
       training ofat least three years ' duration, the Kingdom of                not exceed 15% vol, are similar;
       Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
       Treaty;                                                               — products such as champagne and sparkling fruit
                                                                                wines whose alcoholic strength does not exceed
 2 , the Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.                         15% vol are similar.
 (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .                                       3 . The second paragraph of Article 95 is to be interpreted
                                                                             as meaning that, in order to assess the compatibility ofa
                                                                             fiscal charge, account must be taken of the impact of
                                                                             that charge on the competitive relationships between the


title: Joined Cases T-14/14 and T-87/14: Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Plea of illegality — Legal basis — Misuse of powers — Rights of the defence — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Ne bis in idem — Res judicata — Proportionality — Manifest error of assessment — Fundamental rights)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council
   (Joined Cases T-14/14 and T-87/14) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Plea of illegality - Legal basis - Misuse of powers - Rights of the defence - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Ne bis in idem - Res judicata - Proportionality - Manifest error of assessment - Fundamental rights))
   (2017/C 104/54)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (Tehran, Iran) and 10 other parties (represented by: F. Randolph QC, P. Pantelis, Solicitor, M. Lester, Barrister, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant in Case T-87/17: European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, in Case T-14/14, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 46), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicants; and, in Case T-87/14, (i) pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, for a declaration that Decision 2013/497 and Regulation No 971/2013 are inapplicable, and (ii) pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of Council Decision 2013/685/CFSP of 26 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 316, p. 46), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1203/2013 of 26 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 316, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and the other applicants whose names are listed in the Annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


title: Case C-138/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/49/EC — Assessment and management of environmental noise — Non-transposition within the prescribed period)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/20

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-138/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/49/EC - Assessment and management of environmental noise - Non-transposition within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 331/35)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Jackson, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2003 in Case T-366/00: Scott SA v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — State aid — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 15 — Limitation period — Recovery of aid — Act interrupting the limitation period)

text:
7.6.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 135/25
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 10 April 2003                                                             of 10 April 2003
in Case T-353/00: Jean-Marie Le Pen v European Parlia-                      in Case T-366/00: Scott SA v Commission of the European
                                ment ( 1)                                                              Communities ( 1)
                                                                            (Action for annulment — State aid — Regulation (EC)
(Act of the Parliament — Disqualification of a Member of
                                                                            No 659/1999 — Article 15 — Limitation period — Recovery
the European Parliament from holding office — Application
                                                                                of aid — Act interrupting the limitation period)
of national law — Action for annulment — Challengeable
                       act — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (2003/C 135/38)
                           (2003/C 135/37)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Case T-366/00, Scott SA, established in Saint-Cloud (France),
                                                                            represented by Sir Jeremy Lever QC, G. Peretz, Barrister, and
In Case T-353/00, Jean-Marie Le Pen, residing at Saint-Cloud                R. Griffith, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxem-
(France), represented by F. Wagner, lawyer, v European                      bourg, supported by French Republic (Agents: F. Million,
Parliament (Agents: H. Krück and C. Karamarcos), supported                  G. de Bergues and S. Seam), v Commission of the European
by French Republic (Agents: R. Abraham, G. de Bergues,                      Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and J. Flett): Application for
D. Colas and L. Bernheim): Application for annulment of the                 partial annulment of Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of
decision in the form of a declaration of the President of the               12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by France to Scott Paper
European Parliament of 23 October 2000 on the disqualifi-                   SA Kimberly-Clark (OJ 2002 L 12, p. 1), the Court of First
cation of the applicant from holding office as a Member of                  Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
the European Parliament, the Court of First Instance (Fifth                 of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas, P. Lindh,
Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-                    N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges; J. Palacio González,
Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal             Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                   on 10 April 2003, in which it:
10 April 2003, in which it:
                                                                            1.     Dismisses the application for annulment of Article 2 of
1.     Dismisses the application as inadmissible;                                  Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 in so far
                                                                                as it alleges that the Commission infringed Article 15 of
                                                                                Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999
                                                                                laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC];
2.     Orders the applicant to bear his own costs and to pay those of
       the Parliament in the main proceedings and in the proceedings
       on the application for interim relief;
                                                                            2.     Orders that the remainder of the proceedings be continued;
3.     Orders the French Republic bear its own costs.
                                                                            3.     Reserves the costs.
( 1) OJ C 28 of 27.01.2001.                                                 (1 ) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.


title: Case C-130/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht München by order of that Court of 27 February 2002 in the case of Krings GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, Zoll- und. Verbrauchsteuerabteilung, Dienstort München

text:
15.6.2002                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 144/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                     a)    64 % granulated sugar, 1,9 % tea-extract and water
                                                                                and
—     In the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance
      incorrectly found that the appellant’s claim was time-                        b)    64 % granulated sugar, 1,9% tea-extract, 0,8 % citric
      barred. Even after the application had been lodged, the                             acid and water are not preparations with a basis of
      respondents had given the appellant a binding assurance                             extracts of tea?
      that — following the conclusion of certain test cases
      pending before the Court — they would make him a
      binding offer of compensation. The respondents were not                 2)    Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 306/2001 (2) of
      entitled simply to disregard that assurance and plead that                    12 February 2001 concerning the classification of certain
      the appellant’s claim was time-barred. The Court of First                     goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2001 L 44,
      Instance also failed to take into account the fact that the                   p. 25) valid in respect of the products identified at
      appellant had not been officially informed of his legal                       points 2 and 3 of the Annex?
      rights.
—     In the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance                  (1) OJ L 279 of 23.10.2001, p. 1.
      incorrectly found that the appellant was denied a refer-                (2) OJ L 044 of 15.2.2001, p. 25.
      ence quantity on different grounds from those provided
      for by Article 3a of Regulation No 857/84 (2). In that
      respect the Court of First Instance failed to take account
      of, and evaluate, the totality of the issues raised in the
      proceedings.
(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting
    general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof
    of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products               (Douanekamer) te Amsterdam by judgment of that Court
    sector (OJ 1984 L 90 , p. 13).                                            of 2 April 2002 in the case of Timmermans Diessen B.V.
                                                                                against head of the Roosendaal Customs district
                                                                                (Case C-133/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/36)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
München by order of that Court of 27 February 2002 in
the case of Krings GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion
Nürnberg, Zoll- und Verbrauchsteuerabteilung, Dienstort                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                               München                                        European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof
                                                                              (Douanekamer) te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of
                                                                              Appeal) Customs Chamber of 2 April 2002, received at the
                           (Case C-130/02)                                    Court Registry on 10 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                              the case of Timmermans Diessen B.V. against head of the
                           (2002/C 144/35)                                    Roosendaal Customs district on the following question:
                                                                              Does Article 9(1) of the Community Customs Code (1), read in
                                                                              conjunction with Article 12(5)(a)(iii) thereof, provide the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        customs authorities with a legal basis for withdrawing binding
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Mün-                       tariff information where they change the position adopted in
chen (Munich Finance Court) of 27 February 2002, received at                  it with regard to the interpretation of the legal provisions
the Court Registry on 9 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling                  applicable to the tariff classification of the goods concerned
in the case of Krings GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion                        even where the change is made within the six-year period
Nürnberg, Zoll- u. Verbrauchsteuerabteilung, Dienstort                        referred to?
München on the following questions:
1)    Is the combined nomenclature in the version of Annex I                  (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
      to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 (1) of                           establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302 of
      6 August 2001, amending Annex I to Council Regulation                       19.10.1992, p. 1.).
      (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomencla-
      ture and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2001 L 279,
      p. 1), to be interpreted as meaning that mixtures of


title: Case T-366/11: Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2012 — Bial-Portela v OHIM — Isdin (ZEBEXIR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ZEBEXIR — Earlier Community word mark ZEBINIX — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2012 — Bial-Portela v OHIM — Isdin (ZEBEXIR)
   (Case T-366/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ZEBEXIR - Earlier Community word mark ZEBINIX - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 366/64
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bial-Portela & C
         a
      , SA (São Mamede do Coronado, Portugal) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz and J.M. Conceição Pimenta, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Isdin, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda, G. Macias Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and H.L. Curtis-Oliver, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2011 (Case R 1212/2009-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Bial-Portela & Ca, SA and Isdin, SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 April 2011 (Case R 1212/2009-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those of Bial-Portela & Ca, SA;

               3.

               Orders Isdin, SA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case T-32/16: Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Czech Republic v Commission

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/57

         Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Czech Republic v Commission
   (Case T-32/16)
   (2016/C 098/73)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes expenditure of a total of EUR 584 299,25 incurred by the Czech Republic,

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy.

                           —

                           The Commission decided to exclude the expenditure from EU financing although there was no breach of EU or national law. It wrongly assumed that the application of a lower maximum age in the case of support for early retirement required a change of a rural development programme within the meaning of Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.

               2.

               Should the Court not uphold the first plea in law, the applicant puts forward a second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013.

                           —

                           Even if the application of a lower maximum age in the case of support for early retirement without a change to a rural development programme constituted an infringement of Regulation No 1698/2005 (quod non), the Commission incorrectly assessed the importance of that infringement and the financial damage to the European Union. The importance of any infringement is minimal and there was no financial damage to the European Union.


title: Case C-542/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of movement for persons — Access to education for migrant workers and their family members — Funding for higher educational studies pursued outside the territory of the Member State concerned — Residence requirement)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-542/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of movement for persons - Access to education for migrant workers and their family members - Funding for higher educational studies pursued outside the territory of the Member State concerned - Residence requirement)
   2012/C 227/02
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Rozet and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, J. Langer and K. Bulterman, acting as Agents)

      Intervening parties in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. van den Broeck and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark, (represented by: V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agent), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and C. Blaschke, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by A. Falk, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Council Regulation No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English special edition 1968(II), p. 475) — Access to education — Funding of studies abroad — Residence requirement — ‘3 out of 6 years’ rule

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by requiring that migrant workers and dependent family members comply with a residence requirement — namely, the ‘three out of six years’ rule — in order to be eligible to receive funding for higher educational studies pursued outside the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2434/92 of 27 July 1992;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Action brought on 12 August 1996 by Breda Fucine Meridionali SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-126/96)

text:
26 . 10 . 96         1 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 318 / 15
otherwise the objectives which Decision 94/90/EC is                    The applicants submit that the prohibition laid down in
intended to achieve would not be attained . This is all the            Articles 2 ( b ) and 3 ( a ) of the Directive, in so far as they refer
more so in the present case, in which the non-production of            to the therapeutic use of beta-agonists in approved
the documents requested, which form the subject-matter of              veterinary medicinal products, will deprive them of their
an application for measures of organization of procedure in            right to manufacture and market the veterinary medicinal
another case, is contrary to the proper administration of              products in question for which they hold regular licences in
justice .                                                              conformity with applicable European rules . This
                                                                       interference with the applicants ' specific rights is not
In addition , the applicant asserts that there has been an             consistent with EC fundamental principles of law, such as
infringement of the obligation to provide a statement of               the principle of proportionality, the principles of legal
reasons pursuant to Article 190 of the EC Treaty .                     certainty and of legitimate expectations, and the principle of
                                                                       good administration .
                                                                       In this regard the applicants, while understanding the
                                                                       legitime interest of the Council and the Commission to
Action brought on 9 August 1996 by Boehringer Ingelheim                combat the illegal use of beta-agonists as bulk chemicals for
Vetmedica GmbH and C. H. Boehringer Sohn Limited                       growing purposes, consider that a ban on the placing on the
  Partnership against the Council of the European Union                market of their veterinary medicinal products is not
                                                                       justified . Indeed, as a consequence of that ban :
                        ( Case T-125 /96
                          ( 96/C 318/29 )                              — animals are deprived of an essential product for the
                                                                            protection of their health ,
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       — the applicants are denied their legitimate right to
An action against the Council of the European Communities                   continue to market products which are praised by all
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                       practitioners for their safety and quality .
European Communities on 9 August 1996 by Boehringer
Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C. H. Boehringer Sohn                     Such effects cannot be justified by the aim pursued by the
Limited Partnership, represented by Messer Denis                       Council when adopting the contested measure .
Waelbroeck and Denis Fosselard , of the Brussels Bar,
Liedekerke Wolters Waelbroeck & Kirkpatrick , 3                        Moreover, Article 43 of the EC Treaty has been violated, in
boulevard de l'Empereur, Brussels, with an address for                 so far as the European Parliament was consulted on a
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Arendt &                       proposal which differed substantially from the text of
Medernach, 8— 10 rue Mathias Hardt.                                    Directive 96/22/EC .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            (>) OJ No L 125 , 23 . 5 . 1996 , p . 3 .
— annul Articles 1 , 2, 3 and 4 of Council Directive
      96/22/EC of 29 April 1 996 ( 1 ), in so far as they prohibit
      the placing on the market of veterinary medicinal
      products containing beta-agonists for administering for
      therapeutic purposes to animals the flesh and products
      of which are intended for human consumption ,                     Action brought on 12 August 1996 by Breda Fucine
                                                                        Meridionali SpA against the Commission of the European
— condemn the Community, as represented here by the                                                  Communities
      Council, to repair the damage suffered by them as a                                         ( Case T-126/96 )
      result of the contested measure,
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/30 )
 — order the Council to bear the costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
 The applicants are the sole significant producers of                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
 medicines based on beta-agonists of the kind affected by               Instance of the European Communities on 12 August 1996
 Directive 96/22/EC . According to them, Directive 96/22/EC             by Breda Fucine Meridionali SpA, whose registered office is
 targets specifically their products, which must be seen as             at Bari, Italy, represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian
 having motivated the Community institutions in this                    Michele Roberti, both of the Naples Bar, with an address for
 matter .
                                                                        service in Brussels at the Chambers of Antonio Tizzano, 36 ,
 The prohibition referred to in the contested Directive will , in       place du Grand Sablon .
 fact, prevent the administering of beta-agonists to treat
 respiratory disorders in food producing animals of any                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
 species . The other common therapeutic use of beta-agonists ,
 i.e. inducing tocolysis in cows when calving, will continue to         — annul in whole or, in the alternative , in part ( as regards
 be authorized by the Directive .                                           the points referred to in this action ) the Commission's
 ---pagebreak--- No C 318/16           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 10 . 96
    decision of 29 May 1995 concerning certain State aid                  during the period in which it was producing in order to
    granted by Italy to Breda Fucine Meridionali SpA                      supply the needs of the 'defence sector' is covered by the
    ( COM(96 ) 1643 final ),                                              derogation provided for by Article 223 ( 1 ) ( b ) of the
                                                                         Treaty . In addition, the financial assistance subsequent
— order the Commission to pay the costs of these                         to 1987 can be explained by considerations relating to
    proceedings .                                                        the 'group policy' pursued by the controlling
                                                                         company .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                   — Misapplication of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( a ) and (c ) of the
                                                                         Treaty.
The applicant in these proceedings is a second smelting                  In this connection the applicant maintains that the
foundry forming part of the EFIM group . Until 1986 two                  Commission infringed that provision, in that it failed to
companies in the defence sector were shareholders in the                 assess correctly the aid granted for reorganization and
applicant company. By the contested decision, the                        restructuring and the importance of the fact that the
Commission declared that State aid alleged to have been                  company is established in a particularly disadvantaged
granted to the applicant was incompatible with the common                region .
market and also that the aid was unlawful inasmuch as prior
notification had not been given in accordance with
Article 93 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty. The Commission has
moreover ordered the aid to be repaid.
In this respect the applicant puts forward the following
grounds for contesting the decision :                                Action brought on 12 August 1996 by EFIM — Ente
                                                                     Partecipazioni e Finanziamento Industria Manifatturiera, in
                                                                     liquidation, against the Commission of the European
— Breach of procedural rules and of the principal audi                                         Communities
   alteram partem.
                                                                                ( Case T-127/96 )
   According to the applicant, in its communication of                                        ( 96/C 318/31 )
    initiation of the procedure the Commission merely
    referred to the financial support to the sum of Lit 52 000                      (Language of the case: Italian)
    million received by EFIM and loans guaranteed by the
    State of the sum of Lit 10 000 million, without
   mentioning other presumed transfers of funds or the              An action against the Commission of the European
   dates on which those took place . Thus, in that                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
   communication, the defendant did not refer, directly or           Instance of the European Communities on 12 August 1996
   indirectly, to much of the aid challenged in the                  by EFIM — Ente Partecipazioni e Finanziamento Industria
   decision .                                                       Manifatturiera , in liquidation, whose registered office is at
                                                                     Bari, Italy, represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian
                                                                    Michele Roberti, both of the Naples Bar, with an address for
— Breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate         service in Brussels at the Chambers of Antonio Tizzano, 36
   expectations, and failure to observe the five-year               place du Grand Sablon .
   limitation period .
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
   In the decision, the Commission challenged the grant of
   aid dating from 1985 to 1992 . By so doing, it declared          — annul in whole or, in the alternative, in part ( as regards
   acts and relationships going back a long period of time to            the points referred to in this action ) the Commission 's
   be unlawful . The applicant considers that the defendant              decision of 29 Mai 1995 concerning certain State aid
   ought not to have included such remote acts and                       granted by Italy to Breda Fucine Meridionali SpA
   relationships in its legal appraisal . A precise limitation           ( COM(96 ) 1643 final ),
   period must be complied with even with regard to State
   aid; by analogy with the period fixed for other matters          — order the Commission to pay the costs of these
   ( Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and               proceedings .
   Regulation ( EEC ) No 2988/74 ), that period should be of
   five years ' duration .
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
— Breach of Article 92 ( 1 ) of the Treaty,
                                                                    The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those
                                                                    in Case T-126/96 Breda Fucine Meridionali ( M.
   in that the Commission did not establish the nature of
   the aid involved. Specifically, the defendant altogether         (') See page 15 of this Official Journal .
   failed to assess the aid in question in the light of the
   situation as it was when the aid was granted. In that
   regard the applicant states that the assistance given


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 30 April 1996 in the case of Hilmar Kulzer v. Freistaat Bayern (Case C-194/96)

text:
10 . 8 . 96              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 233/5
     into and out of the European Community ( ), as                                 particular an employed or self-employed person ),
     subsequently amended, be interpreted as also including                         has exercised the right to freedom of movement
     waste which for the most part consists of the solid plastic                    within the European Community ?
     wastes referred to in Annex II to the Regulation, but also
     of various other wastes referred to in that Annex and a                  ( b ) Is it relevant in that respect whether the other
     small quantity of materials not referred to therein ?                          parent moved with the child to another Member
                                                                                State and pursued an activity there as an employed
2 , ( a ) If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative , should                     or self-employed person until his or her death ?
           the phrase ' storage of materials intended for
           submission to any operation in this Annex' in                 2 . If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is a retired
           Annex IIB to Council Directive 75/442/EEC of                       police officer a civil servant within the meaning of
           15 July 1975 on waste ( 2 ), as subsequently                       Article 2 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ?
           amended, be interpreted as covering not only
           storage at the plant in which the other operations            C ) OJ , English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 .
           referred to in the Annex will take place , but also
           storage pending transport to such a plant,
           regardless of whether that plant is situated inside or
           outside the Community ?
     ( b ) If the first part of this question is answered in the
           affirmative, what minimum evidence must be                    Action brought on 10 June 1996 by the Commission of the
           available for a finding that the waste is actually                European Communities against the French Republic
           intended for recovery, where notification has not
                                                                                ( Case C-197/96 )
           been given ?
                                                                                ( 96/C 233/08 )
3 . If Questions 1 and 2 ( a ) are answered in the affirmative ,
     must it then be inferred from the third sentence of                 An action against the French Republic was brought before
     Article 26 ( 2 ) of the Regulation that, in the cases to            the Court of Justice on 10 June 1996 by the Commission of
     which that provison refers , the competent authority of             the European Communities, represented by Marie
     destination is also obliged, or at any rate authorized , to         Wolfcarius , acting as Agent, with an address for service in
     do what the competent authority of dispatch is obliged              Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz ,
     to do pursuant to the first sentence of that                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
     provision ?
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
(') OJ No L 30 , 1993 , p . 1 .
Ç-) OJ No L 194 , 1975 , p . 47 .                                        — declare that, by maintaining, in Article L 213-1 of the
                                                                              Code du Travail ( Employment code ), a prohibition of
                                                                             night work for women in industry, whereas no such
                                                                             prohibition exists in relation to men, the French
                                                                             Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                             Article 5 ( 1 ) of Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
                                                                              1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal
                                                                             treatment for men and women as regards access to
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                  employment, vocational training and promotion , and
Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 30 April 1996                  working conditions ( 1 ),
       in the case of Hilmar Kulzer v. Freistaat Bayern
                          ( Case C-194/96 )                              — order the French Republic to pay the costs .
                            ( 96 /C 233 /07 )
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   In consequence of the denunciation by the French
European Communities by an order of the 10th Chamber of                  Government of ILO Convention No 89 , the obligations
the Bundessozialgericht ( Federal Social Court ) of 30 April             imposed by that Convention on France in relation to third
1 996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 1 0 June             countries, as recognized by the Court of Justice in the
1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Freistaat Bayern         judgment in Levy ( 2 ), ceased to exist with effect from
( Federal State of Bavaria ) v . Hilmar Kulzer on the following          February 1993 . The retention , without amendment, of the
questions :                                                              text of the legislation referred to in the wording of the form
                                                                         of order sought gives rise to an ambiguous state of affairs .
1 , ( a ) Does Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ('), in                     Save where it is of a binding nature , a ministerial reply to a
           particular Article 73 thereof, apply if the child in          parliamentary question C ) does not constitute an adequate
           respect of whom family benefits are sought, but not           adaptation of the legislative provisions in force in France .
           the person entitled to benefits him or herself ( in           Lastly, the existence of collective agreements negotiated in


title: Case C-362/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland)) — Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Personal data — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of such data — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 7, 8 and 47 — Directive 95/46/EC — Articles 25 and 28 — Transfer of personal data to third countries — Decision 2000/520/EC — Transfer of personal data to the United States — Inadequate level of protection — Validity — Complaint by an individual whose data has been transferred from the European Union to the United States — Powers of the national supervisory authorities)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland)) — Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner
   (Case C-362/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Personal data - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of such data - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 7, 8 and 47 - Directive 95/46/EC - Articles 25 and 28 - Transfer of personal data to third countries - Decision 2000/520/EC - Transfer of personal data to the United States - Inadequate level of protection - Validity - Complaint by an individual whose data has been transferred from the European Union to the United States - Powers of the national supervisory authorities))
   (2015/C 398/06)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court (Ireland)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maximillian Schrems

      Respondent: Data Protection Commissioner

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision adopted pursuant to that provision, such as Commission Decision 2000/520/EC of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46 on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce, by which the European Commission finds that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection, does not prevent a supervisory authority of a Member State, within the meaning of Article 28 of that directive as amended, from examining the claim of a person concerning the protection of his rights and freedoms in regard to the processing of personal data relating to him which has been transferred from a Member State to that third country when that person contends that the law and practices in force in the third country do not ensure an adequate level of protection.

               2.

               Decision 2000/520 is invalid.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Case C-55/14: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Régie communale autonome du stade Luc Varenne v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 77/388/EEC — VAT — Exemptions — Article 13B(b) — Concept of ‘exempted letting of immovable property’ — Provision, for consideration, of a football stadium — Contract for provision reserving certain rights and prerogatives to the owner — Supply, by the owner, of various services representing 80 % of the charge specified in the contract)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/13

      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Régie communale autonome du stade Luc Varenne v État belge
      (Case C-55/14) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 77/388/EEC - VAT - Exemptions - Article 13B(b) - Concept of ‘exempted letting of immovable property’ - Provision, for consideration, of a football stadium - Contract for provision reserving certain rights and prerogatives to the owner - Supply, by the owner, of various services representing 80 % of the charge specified in the contract))
      (2015/C 107/16)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour d’appel de Mons

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Régie communale autonome du stade Luc Varenne

         Defendant: État belge

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as meaning that the act of making available, for consideration, a football stadium under a contract reserving certain rights and prerogatives to the stadium owner and providing for the supply, by the owner, of various services, including services of maintenance, cleaning, repair and upgrading, representing 80 % of the charge which is agreed in the contact to be payable, does not constitute, as a general rule, a ‘letting of immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision. The finding of the facts is for the referring court.

         (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Case C-51/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 1 February 2017 — Teréz Ilyés, Emil Kiss v OTP Bank Nyrt., OTP Faktoring Követeléskezelő Zrt.

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 1 February 2017 — Teréz Ilyés, Emil Kiss v OTP Bank Nyrt., OTP Faktoring Követeléskezelő Zrt.
   (Case C-51/17)
   (2017/C 144/26)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Ítélőtábla

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Teréz Ilyés, Emil Kiss

      Defendants: OTP Bank Nyrt., OTP Faktoring Követeléskezelő Zrt.

      Questions referred

               1)

               Is a contractual term which places the exchange rate risk on the consumer and which, owing to the removal of an unfair contractual term which established a bid-offer spread and the obligation to bear the corresponding exchange rate risk, has become part of the contract with ex tunc effects as a consequence of the intervention of the legislature following disputes concerning validity which affected a large number of contracts considered to be a clause which is not individually negotiated within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Directive (1) and which therefore falls within the scope of the Directive?

               2)

               If a contractual term which places the exchange rate risk on the consumer falls within the scope of the Directive, is the exclusion in Article 1(2) of the Directive to be interpreted as also referring to a contractual term which reflects mandatory statutory provisions within the meaning of paragraph 26 of the judgment of the Court of Justice in RWE Vertrieb AG, C-92/11, which have been adopted or have come into force after the conclusion of the contract? Does that exclusion also extend to a contractual term which has become part of the contract with ex tunc effects after the conclusion of the contract as a consequence of a mandatory statutory provision which remedies the invalidity caused by the unfairness of a contractual term which makes it impossible to perform the contract?

               3)

               If, according to the replies to the above questions, it is possible to examine the unfairness of a contractual term which places the exchange rate risk on the consumer, is it to be understood that the requirement for plain intelligible language to which Article 4(2) of the Directive refers is also met if the obligation to provide information required by law and formulated in necessarily general terms is fulfilled in the terms set out in the facts, or is it also necessary to communicate information concerning the risk to the consumer of which the financial institution is aware or to which it might have access at the time the contract is concluded?

               4)

               Is the fact that, at the time the contract was concluded, the contractual terms relating to the power to make unilateral amendments and to the bid-offer spread — which, years later, turned out to be unfair — appeared in the contract together with the term relating to the assumption of the exchange rate risk, so that, as a cumulative effect of those terms, the consumer had no means of foreseeing how the payment obligations or the mechanism for varying them would evolve, relevant from the point of view of the requirement for clarity and transparency and of the provisions in point 1(i) of the Annex to the Directive, for the purposes of interpreting Article 4(1) of the Directive?

               5)

               If the national court declares that the contractual term which places the exchange rate risk on the consumer is unfair, is it required, when determining the legal effects in accordance with the rules of national law, also to take into account of its own motion, while respecting the right of the parties to present argument in inter partes proceedings, the unfairness of other contractual terms which have not been relied on by the applicants in their action? Does the principle that the court should act of its own motion in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice also apply if the applicant is a consumer or, having regard to the position occupied by the principle of the autonomy of the parties in the whole proceedings and to the particular features of the proceedings, does the principle that the parties have the right to delimit the subject matter of an action, in that case, preclude examination by the court of its own motion?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts; OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case C-241/10: Order of the President of the Court of 7 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg — Austria) — Harald Jung and Gerald Hellweger v Magistrat der Stadt Salzburg, other party to the proceedings: Finanzamt Salzburg-Stadt

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg — Austria) — Harald Jung and Gerald Hellweger v Magistrat der Stadt Salzburg, other party to the proceedings: Finanzamt Salzburg-Stadt
   (Case C-241/10) (1)

   2011/C 211/41
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: Case T-369/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2009 — Holland Malt v Commission (State aid — Malt production — Investment aid — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Adverse effect on competition — Effect on trade between Member States — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2009 — Holland Malt v Commission
   (Case T-369/06) (1)

   (State aid - Malt production - Investment aid - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Adverse effect on competition - Effect on trade between Member States - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector)
   2009/C 256/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Holland Malt BV (Lieshout, Netherlands) (represented initially by: O. Brouwer and D. Mes, and subsequently by O. Brouwer, A. Stoffer and P. Schepens, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Scharf and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, M. de Grave, C. ten Dam and Y. de Vries, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/59/EC of 26 September 2006 concerning the State aid granted by the Netherlands to Holland Malt BV (OJ 2007 L 32, p. 76).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Holland Malt BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case C-242/16: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 14 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — José Rui Garrett Pontes Pedroso v Netjets Management Limited

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/13

         Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 14 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — José Rui Garrett Pontes Pedroso v Netjets Management Limited
   (Case C-242/16) (1)

   (2017/C 129/20)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.


title: Case F-78/12: Action brought on 25 July 2012 — ZZ v Council

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/34

         Action brought on 25 July 2012 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-78/12)
   2012/C 295/59
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Council's decision not to include the applicant in the list of officials eligible for promotion in respect of 2011

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 12 September 2011 of the Secretariat General of the Council and the decision of the Appointing Authority of 18 April 2012 not to include the applicant in the list of officials eligible for promotion;

               —

               Order the Council to pay material and non-pecuniary damages provisionally assessed at EUR 40 000, which will be more precisely quantified during the proceedings, and compensatory and late-payment interest at the rate of 6.75%;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Case T-302/00: Action brought on 21 September 2000 by Anthony Goldstein against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
9.12.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 355/33
The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those             The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of his
relied on in Case T-297/00 (1).                                           application:
                                                                          —     Infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC;
(1) See p. 30 of this Official Journal.
                                                                          —     Infringement of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April
                                                                                1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the
                                                                                mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and
                                                                                other evidence of formal qualifications (1);
                                                                          —     Breach of the rules of assessment of the Community
                                                                                interest.
                                                                          (1) OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1.
Action brought on 21 September 2000 by Anthony
Goldstein against the Commission of the European Com-
                                munities
                           (Case T-302/00)
                           (2000/C 355/71)
                                                                          Action brought on 22 September 2000 by Marı́a Jesús
                                                                          Sáez Acevedo against Commission of the European Com-
                    (Language of the case: English)                                                   munities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                          (Case T-304/00)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 September 2000 by Anthony
                                                                                (2000/C 355/72)
Goldstein, represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor,
of Merriman White, London.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 7 July 2000                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      rejecting the complaint made pursuant to Regulation                 European Communities on 22 September 2000 by Marı́a Jesús
      No 17 by the applicant concerning infringement of                   Sáez Acevedo, residing in Brussels represented by Juan Ramón
      Articles 81 and 82 EC by the General Medical Council;               Iturriagagoitia.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the decision adopted on 13 December 1999 by the
                                                                                Commission’s Pensions Unit, in accordance with the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 earlier requests of 23 August 1999, 22 September 1999
                                                                                and 3 December 1999;
In 1993 the applicant, a Community medical specialist in
                                                                          —     review of the applicant’s file, in view of the transfer of her
rheumatology, submitted to the Commission under Article
                                                                                pension rights, by the Transfer of Pension Rights Section
3 (2) of Council Regulation No 17 an application for a finding
                                                                                of the Commission Pensions Unit following receipt of
that the General Medical Council, a statutory body which
                                                                                the interest arising from enforcement of a judgment,
regulates the medical profession in the territory of the United
                                                                                transferred by the Spanish social security;
Kingdom, had infringed Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty
(now Articles 81 and 82 EC). By letter of 7 July 2000 the
Commission informed the applicant that his complaint had                  —     order any calculation necessary in respect of the above-
been rejected (the contested decision).                                         mentioned transfer;


title: Case C-199/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Dr. Erhard Eschig v UNIQA Sachversicherung AG (Legal expenses insurance — Directive 87/344/EEC — Article 4(1) — Right of insured persons to choose their own lawyer — Contractual limitation — Multiple insured persons suffering loss as a result of the same event — Selection of the legal representative by the insurer)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/19

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Dr. Erhard Eschig v UNIQA Sachversicherung AG
   (Case C-199/08) (1)

   (Legal expenses insurance - Directive 87/344/EEC - Article 4(1) - Right of insured persons to choose their own lawyer - Contractual limitation - Multiple insured persons suffering loss as a result of the same event - Selection of the legal representative by the insurer)
   2009/C 267/32
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dr. Erhard Eschig

      Defendant: UNIQA Sachversicherung AG

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) — Interpretation of Article 4(1), of Council Directive 87/344/EEC on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance (OJ 1987 L 185, p. 77) — Clause contained in the standard terms and conditions of insurance of a legal expenses insurer enabling it, in the case of an accident in which a large number of insured persons suffer losses as a result of the same event, to choose a legal representative, and thereby limiting the right of the individual insured person to choose his own lawyer (‘mass torts clause’).

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance must be interpreted as not permitting the legal expenses insurer to reserve the right, where a large number of insured persons suffer loss as a result of the same event, itself to select the legal representative of all the insured persons concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 02.08.2008.


title: Case C-555/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo N ° 6 de Murcia (Spain) lodged on 3 December 2014  — IOS Finance EFC SA v Servicio Murciano de Salud

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 6 de Murcia (Spain) lodged on 3 December 2014 — IOS Finance EFC SA v Servicio Murciano de Salud
   (Case C-555/14)
   (2015/C 056/12)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 6 de Murcia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: IOS Finance EFC SA

      Defendant: Servicio Murciano de Salud

      Questions referred

   ‘‘Regard being had to Articles 4(1), 6 and 7(2) and (3) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 (1) on combating late payment in commercial transactions:

               1)

               Must Article 7(2) of the directive be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may not make recovery of the principal debt conditional on the waiver of the right to interest for late payment?

               2)

               Must Article 7(3) of the directive be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may not make recovery of the principal debt conditional on the waiver of the right to compensation for recovery costs?

               3)

               Should the answer to those two questions be in the affirmative, where the debtor is a contracting authority, can it rely on the freedom of contract of the parties in order to avoid its obligation to pay interest for late payment and compensation for recovery costs?’

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1.


title: Case C-365/05 P: Order of the Court of 5 October 2006 — Dorte Schmidt-Brown v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Duty to provide assistance — Rejection of request for financial assistance in defamation proceedings brought before the United Kingdom courts)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/20

         Order of the Court of 5 October 2006 — Dorte Schmidt-Brown v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-365/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Duty to provide assistance - Rejection of request for financial assistance in defamation proceedings brought before the United Kingdom courts)
   (2006/C 294/34)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Dorte Schmidt-Brown (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Curral and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents, and D. Waelbroeck, avocat)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 5 July 2005 in Case T-387/02 Schmidt-Brown v Commission dismissing the action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 26 April 2002 rejecting the applicant's request for financial assistance from the Commission in a defamation action brought by the applicant against a company before the High Court of Justice (England and Wales)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               Ms Schmidt-Brown shall bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 281 of 12.11.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court of 20 September 2011 in Case E-5/11 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency — Regulation (EC) No 1891/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on multiannual funding for the action of the European Maritime Safety Agency in the field of response to pollution caused by ships and amending Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002)

text:
               22.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/15

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 20 September 2011
   in Case E-5/11
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway
   (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency — Regulation (EC) No 1891/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on multiannual funding for the action of the European Maritime Safety Agency in the field of response to pollution caused by ships and amending Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002)
   2011/C 374/10
   In Case E-5/11, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to make: (a) the Act referred to at point 56o of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto; and (b) the Act referred to at point 56oa of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EC) No 1891/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on multiannual funding for the action of the European Maritime Safety Agency in the field of response to pollution caused by ships and amending Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, part of its internal legal order within the time prescribed, the Kingdom of Norway failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 20 September 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to make: (a) the Act referred to at point 56o of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto; and (b) the Act referred to at point 56oa of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EC) No 1891/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on multiannual funding for the action of the European Maritime Safety Agency in the field of response to pollution caused by ships and amending Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, part of its internal legal order within the time prescribed, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA;

               2.

               orders the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-368/13: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2015  — Boehringer Ingelheim International v OHIM — Lehning entreprise (ANGIPAX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ANGIPAX — Earlier Community word mark ANTISTAX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2015 — Boehringer Ingelheim International v OHIM — Lehning entreprise (ANGIPAX)
   (Case T-368/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ANGIPAX - Earlier Community word mark ANTISTAX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 096/19)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH (Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: initially V. von Bomhard and D. Slopek, lawyers, then V. von Bomhard)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Pétrequin and J. Crespo Carrillo, agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Lehning entreprise SARL (Sainte-Barbe, France) (represented by: P. Demoly, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2013 (Case R 571/2012-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and Lehning entreprise SARL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH to pay the costs, including the expenses necessarily incurred by Lehning entreprise SARL for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case T-383/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2008 — Hynix Semiconductor v Council

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/42

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2008 — Hynix Semiconductor v Council
   (Case T-383/03) (1)

   (2009/C 6/83)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 21, 24.1.2004.


title: Case C-277/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia)) — Vitālijs Drozdovs v AAS ‘Baltikums’ (Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 72/166/EEC — Article 3(1) — Directive 90/232/EEC — Article 1 — Road traffic accident — Death of the parents of the applicant, who is a minor — Right to compensation of the child — Non-material damage — Compensation — Cover by compulsory insurance)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/17

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia)) — Vitālijs Drozdovs v AAS ‘Baltikums’
   (Case C-277/12) (1)

   (Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 72/166/EEC - Article 3(1) - Directive 90/232/EEC - Article 1 - Road traffic accident - Death of the parents of the applicant, who is a minor - Right to compensation of the child - Non-material damage - Compensation - Cover by compulsory insurance)
   2013/C 367/28
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vitālijs Drozdovs

      Defendant: AAS ‘Baltikums’

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Augstakas tiesas Senats — Interpretation of Article 3 of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 1972 L 103, p. 1) and of Article 1(2) of Second 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 vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17) — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Determination of damages which must be covered by the civil liability insurance — Possibility to include non-material damage in the compulsory protection for personal injuries — National legislation providing for an amount of compensation for psychological pain and suffering which is significantly lower that the amount laid down in the directives for compensation for personal injuries

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability and Article 1(1) and (2) of Second 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 vehicles must be interpreted as meaning that compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles must cover compensation for non-material damage suffered by the next of kin of the deceased victims of a road traffic accident, in so far as such compensation is provided for as part of the civil liability of the insured party under the national law applicable in the dispute in the main proceedings.

               2.

               Article 3(1) of Directive 72/166 and Article 1(1) and (2) of Second Directive 84/5 must be interpreted as precluding national provisions, pursuant to which compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles covers compensation for non-material damage resulting from the death of a person’s next of kin in a road traffic accident — payable in accordance with national civil liability law — only to a maximum amount which is lower than the minimum amounts laid down in Article 1(2) of Second Directive 84/5.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.


title: Case C-522/15 P: Appeal brought on 28 September 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 in Joined Cases T-389/10 and T-419/10

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/26

         Appeal brought on 28 September 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 in Joined Cases T-389/10 and T-419/10
   (Case C-522/15 P)
   (2015/C 406/26)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Siderurgica Latina Martin SpA (SLM), Ori Martin SA

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               (i)

               set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as the General Court reduced the basic amount of the fine imposed on SLM, on the grounds that the General Court, in the contested decision, failed to take account of the fact that, for part of the infringement, SLM had not participated in the external aspect of Club Italia;

               (ii)

               set aside the judgment under in so far as the General Court reduced the basic amount of the fine imposed on SLM to EUR 1,956 million and annulled the fine imposed on SLM jointly and severally with Ori Martin;

               (iii)

               exercising its own unlimited jurisdiction, recalculate the amount of the fine to be imposed, in accordance with that requested by the Commission;

               (iv)

               order the applicants at first instance to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               (i)

               The General Court fundamentally misread the facts by erroneously considering that the basic amount of the fine imposed by the contested decision against SLM was EUR 19,8 million, instead of EUR 15,965 million as determined by the second corrective decision, EUR 14 million of which was imposed jointly and severally with Ori Martin.

               (ii)

               The General Court erred in law in its application of the rules on joint and several liability for fines and in the calculation of the 10 % ceiling, in so far as it fixed the final amount of the fine for which SLM is liable at EUR 1,956 million by applying the legal limit of 10 % of SLM’s worldwide turnover in the reference year mentioned in Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. (1) In the present case, the General Court ought to have found, in the judgment, that SLM was liable, not only individually for the payment of EUR 1,956 million, but for an additional sum of EUR 13,3 million too, jointly and severally with Ori Martin. The ceilings ought to have been calculated separately for SLM, individually, for the period when it participated in the infringement during which it was not controlled by Ori Martin (the ceiling relating to the SLM’s worldwide turnover), and for SLM jointly and severally with Ori Martin, for the period in which that subsidiary was controlled by its parent (the ceiling relating to Ori Martin’s worldwide turnover, which in the present case was not reached).

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)


title: Case T-141/12: Action brought on 26 March 2012 — Pro-Duo v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (GO!)

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/26

         Action brought on 26 March 2012 — Pro-Duo v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (GO!)
   (Case T-141/12)
   2012/C 165/46
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pro-Duo (Ghent, Belgium) (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Suspend the action pending the outcome of the Cancellation proceedings No 5011 C;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 January 2012 in case R 1373/2011-4, insofar as it declined to suspend proceedings pending outcome of the Cancellation proceedings, or to annul the decision entirely; and

               —

               Order the Opponent to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black, white and grey ‘GO!’, for goods in class 3 — Community trade mark application No 8859712

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 6070981 of the figurative mark ‘GO GLORIA ORTIZ’, for goods in class 3

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market erred in law in failing to suspend the proceedings; and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was a likelihood of confusion between the two trademarks.