title: Case T-195/11: Action brought on 4 April 2011 — Cahier and Others v Council and Commission

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/14

         Action brought on 4 April 2011 — Cahier and Others v Council and Commission
   (Case T-195/11)
   2011/C 173/30
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Jean-Marie Cahier (Montchaude, France) Robert Aubineau (Cierzac, France), Laurent Bigot (Saint Palais sur Mer, France), Pascal Bourdeau (Saintes Lheurine, France), Jacques Brard-Blanchard (Boutiers Saint Trojan, France), Olivier Charruaud (St Martial de Mirambeau, France), Daniel Chauvet (Saint Georges Antignac, France), Régis Chauvet (Marignac, France), Fabrice Compagnon (Avy, France), Francis Crepeau (Jarnac Champagne, France), Bernard Deborde (Arthenac, France), Chantal Goulard (Arthenac), Jean Pierre Gourdet (Moings, France), Bernard Goursaud (Brie sous Matha, France), Jean Gravouil (Saint Hilaire de Villefranche, France), Guy Herbelot (Echebrune, France), Rodrigue Herbelot (Echebrune), Sophie Landrit (Ozillac, France), Michel Mallet (Vanzac, France), Alain Marchadier (Villars en Pons, France), Michel Merlet (Jarnac Champagne), René Phelipon (Cierzac, France), Claude Potut (Avy), Philippe Pruleau (Saint Bonnet sur Gironde, France), Béatrice Rousseau (Gensac La Pallue, France), Jean-Christophe Rousseau (Segonzac, France), Françoise Rousseau (Burie, France), Pascale Rulleaud-Beaufour (Arthenac) and Alain Phelipon (Saintes, France) (represented by: C.-E. Gudin, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               make good in full the loss suffered by virtue of fines, that is the sum of:

                           —

                           EUR 53 600 in relation to Jean-Marie Cahier;

                           —

                           EUR 105 100 in relation to Robert Aubineau;

                           —

                           EUR 240 500 in relation to Laurent Bigot;

                           —

                           EUR 111 100 in relation to Pascal Bourdeau;

                           —

                           EUR 12 800 in relation to Jacques Brard-Blanchard;

                           —

                           EUR 37 600 in relation to Olivier Charruaud;

                           —

                           EUR 122 100 in relation to Daniel Chauvet;

                           —

                           EUR 40 500 in relation to Régis Chauvet;

                           —

                           EUR 97 100 in relation to Fabrice Compagnon;

                           —

                           EUR 105 600 in relation to Francis Crepeau;

                           —

                           EUR 1 081 500 in relation to Bernard Deborde;

                           —

                           EUR 64 800 in relation to Chantal Goulard;

                           —

                           EUR 94 400 in relation to Jean Pierre Gourdet;

                           —

                           EUR 43 000 in relation to Bernard Goursaud;

                           —

                           EUR 82 100 in relation to Jean Gravouil;

                           —

                           EUR 20 500 in relation to Guy Herbelot;

                           —

                           EUR 65 100 in relation to Rodrigue Herbelot;

                           —

                           EUR 53 000 in relation to Sophie Landrit;

                           —

                           EUR 39 500 in relation to Michel Mallet;

                           —

                           EUR 332 500 in relation to Alain Marchadier;

                           —

                           EUR 458 500 in relation to Michel Merlet;

                           —

                           EUR 23 000 in relation to René Phelipon;

                           —

                           EUR 85 100 in relation to Claude Potut;

                           —

                           EUR 3 500 in relation to Philippe Pruleau;

                           —

                           EUR 34 500 in relation to Béatrice Rousseau;

                           —

                           EUR 38 070 in relation to Jean-Christophe Rousseau;

                           —

                           EUR 24 300 in relation to Françoise Rousseau;

                           —

                           EUR 486 500 in relation to Pascale Rulleaud-Beaufour;

                           —

                           EUR 10 500 in relation to Alain Phelipon;

               —

               establish a flat-rate amount for non-material loss at the sum of EUR 100 000 for each of the 29 applicants;

               —

               order the Council and the Commission to pay all the costs and disbursements:

                           —

                           in relation to the ongoing proceedings before the General Court of the European Union;

                           —

                           in relation also to all the proceedings brought before all of the national courts.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants submit that the extra-contractual liability of the European Union is incurred by a serious breach of Article 40(2) TFEU, insofar as Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (1), as implemented by Commission Regulation No 1623/2000 (2) and maintained by Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 (3), prohibits producers of wine obtained from dual-purpose vine varieties from themselves distilling spirits from quantities of wine with a designation of origin produced in excess of the quantity normally produced.
   The applicants have been systematically prosecuted and convicted by the national authorities for having failed to deliver the quantities produced in excess of the normal quantity and not exported as wine to third countries for State compulsory distillation into alcohol by approved distillers.
   The applicants submit, inter alia, that this is a breach of perfectly clear and unambiguous provisions in respect of which the institutions of the European Union did not have any discretion. They allege a breach of the principles of non-discrimination, legal certainty, proportionality, estoppel, the presumption of innocence, proper administration, care and the right to property, as well as wrongful interference with the freedom to produce industrial goods and put them on the market and the wrongful extension of the application of a regulation with the purpose of stabilising the market and guaranteeing a certain revenue for producers to cases where there are no applications for funding from those producers.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 of 25 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine with regard to market mechanisms (OJ 2000 L 194, p. 45).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 of 29 April 2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine, amending Regulations (EC) No 1493/1999, (EC) No 1782/2003, (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 3/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2392/86 and (EC) No 1493/1999 (OJ 2008 L 148, p. 1).


20.2.1999           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 48/23
       Removal from the register of Case C-13/98 (1)              from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Firenze):
                       (1999/C 48/48)                             Centro Servizi Acciai Rivestiti Spa (CSAR) v. Direzione
                                                                  Regionale delle Entrate per la Toscana and Ufficio delle
By order of 9 December 1998 the Court of Justice of the           Imposte Diretti di Firenze.
European Communities has ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-13/98 (request for a preliminary ruling        (1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998.
                                                 COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                         2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
                    of 13 January 1999
                                                                  (1) OJ C 64, 2.3.1996.
in Case T-1/96: Bernhard Böcker-Lensing and Ludger
Schulze-Beiering v. Council of the European Union and
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Action for damages Ð Non-contractual liability Ð Milk
Ð Additional levy Ð Reference quantity Ð Producer
having entered into a non-marketing undertaking Ð                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Voluntary non-resumption of production upon expiry of                                 of 17 December 1998
      the undertaking Ð Acts of national authorities)
                                                                  in Case T-203/96: Embassy Limousines & Services v.
                       (1999/C 48/49)                                                European Parliament (1)
                                                                  (Arbitration clause Ð Existence of a contract Ð
                                                                  Non-contractual liability Ð Withdrawal of an invitation
              (Language of the case: German)                      to tender Ð Legitimate expectations Ð Assessment of
                                                                                damage)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/50)
In Case T-1/96: Bernhard Böcker-Lensing and Ludger
Schulze-Beiering,    residing   at    Borken     (Germany),                       (Language of the case: French)
represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing,
Dietrich Manstetten, Frank Schulze and Klaus Kettner,
Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an address for service in            In Case T-203/96: Embassy Limousines & Services,
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong and Dupong,                  established in Diegem (Belgium), represented by Eric
4-6 Rue de la Boucherie, v. Council of the European               Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Union (Agents: Arthur Brautigam, Hans-Jürgen Rabe,                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
Georg M. Berrisch and Marco NuÂnÄez-Müller) and                   Fort Rheinsheim against European Parliament (Agents:
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Dierk             FrancËois Vainker, Anders Neergaard and Charles Price) Ð
Booû, Michael Niejahr, Hans-Jürgen Rabe, Georg M.                 application for compensation for the damage allegedly
Berrisch and Marco NuÂnÄez-Müller) Ð application for              suffered by the applicant on account of the wrongful
damages pursuant to Article 178 and the second                    conduct of the Parliament in connection with Invitation to
paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty for the losses          Tender No 95/S 158-76321/FR relating to a contract for
suffered by the applicants as a result of their having been       passenger transport using chauffeur-driven vehicles,
prevented from marketing milk pursuant to Council                 brought pursuant to Article 181 of the EC Treaty, under
Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting              the arbitration clause in the third paragraph of Article 6
general rules for the application of the levy referred to in      of the specifications of that invitation to tender and
Article 5(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk            Article VIII of framework contract PE-TRANS-BXL-95/6,
and milk products sector (OJ L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 13),              and, in the alternative, pursuant to Article 178 and the
as supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC)                    second paragraph of Article 215 of that Treaty Ð the
No 1371/84 (OJ L 132, 18.5.1984, p. 11) Ð the Court of            Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P.
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B.                   Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke,
Vesterdorf, President, R. M. Moura Ramos and P.                   Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 December 1998, in
judgment on 13 January 1999, in which it:                         which it:
                                                                  1. Orders the European Parliament to pay to the
1. Dismisses the application.                                         applicant a sum of BEF 5 000 000.


title: Case T-362/02, T-363/02, T-364/02, T-365/02 and T-366/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 June 2006 — Muswellbrook v OHIM-Nike (NIKE)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/31

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 June 2006 — Muswellbrook v OHIM-Nike (NIKE)
   (Case T-362/02, T-363/02, T-364/02, T-365/02 and T-366/02) (1)

   (2006/C 190/56)

      Language of the case: Spanish

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

      (1)  OJ C 44, 22.2.2003.


title: Case T-59/12: Action brought on 10 February 2012 — Planet v Commission

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/26

         Action brought on 10 February 2012 — Planet v Commission
   (Case T-59/12)
   2012/C 118/45
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Planet A.E. public limited consultancy company (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare that the delayed payment by the Commission of the last instalment of the funds payable to the applicant in respect of the work contract ‘Collaboration Environment for Strategic Innovation (Laboranova)’, amounting to EUR 20 665,17, constitutes a breach of its contractual obligations and order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 20 665,17, in respect of the expenses incurred by the applicant in the fourth reference period of the Laboranova work, with interest from 12 October 2011;

               —

               declare that the applicant is not obliged to repay to the Commission the advance payment amounting to EUR 39 657,30 for the P4 period of the Laboranova work;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 30 000,00, as compensation for the damage to the applicant’s professional reputation which was caused by the Commission’s breach of professional confidentiality, with compensatory interest from 6 October 2011 until delivery of the judgment in this case and with late payment interest from the delivery of the judgment in these proceedings until full payment; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this action, the applicant combines two actions.
   First, an action in respect of the Commission’s liability under contract No 035262 for the implementation of the work ‘Collaboration Environment for Strategic Innovation (Laboranova)’, under Article 272 TFEU. In particular, the applicant maintains that, although it fully and properly fulfilled its contractual obligations, the Commission, without any justification and contrary to the terms of the abovementioned contract and the principle of good faith, rejected the applicant’s expenses for the period Ρ4 and suspended payment to the applicant. Consequently, the applicant maintains that the Commission is obliged to pay it the sum of EUR 20 665,17 with, as provided in clause II 28(7) of Annex II to the Contract, interest from 12 October 2011, and that the Commission is not entitled to seek from Planet repayment of the advance payment for the period Ρ4, amounting to EUR 39 657,30.
   Second, an action in respect of the Commission’s non-contractual liability, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 340 TFEU. In particular, the applicant maintains that the Commission, by communicating to the coordinator of the work the existence of a financial audit in respect of the applicant, blatantly disregarded the rules in relation to protection of professional confidentiality, and consequently damaged the applicant’s professional reputation. Accordingly, the applicant seeks compensation for the non-material harm suffered by it with interest (compensatory interest for the period from the date of the illegal communication until delivery of the judgment in this case and until full payment of the due compensation); expressly without prejudice to compensation for the material damage caused by the abovementioned unlawful conduct of the Commission.


title: Case T-11/15: Action brought on 9 January 2015 — Internet Consulting v OHIM — Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Alto Adige (SUEDTIROL)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/50

      Action brought on 9 January 2015 — Internet Consulting v OHIM — Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Alto Adige (SUEDTIROL)
      (Case T-11/15)
      (2015/C 073/61)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Internet Consulting GmbH (Brunico, Italy) (represented by: L. Miori and A. Bertella, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Alto Adige (Bolzano, Italy)

         Details of the proceedings before OHIM

         Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Internet Consulting GmbH

         Trade mark at issue: Word mark ‘SUEDTIROL’ — Community trade mark No 2 826 931

         Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

         Contested decision: Decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2014 in Case R 574/2013-G

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul or alter in full the contested decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2014, notified on 13 November 2014, refusing in any event the application for a declaration of invalidity submitted by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano in respect of the Community trade mark Suedtirol;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal before OHIM and the costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement and/or misapplication of Articles 5 and 56 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

                  —

                  Infringement and misapplication of Articles 7(1)(c), 12 and 52 of that regulation.


title: Case T-429/09: Order of the General Court of 14 March 2011 — Campailla v Commission (Action for damages — Limitation period — Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice — Inadmissibility)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/17

         Order of the General Court of 14 March 2011 — Campailla v Commission
   (Case T-429/09) (1)

   (Action for damages - Limitation period - Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 139/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Massimo Campailla (Boulogne-sur-Mer, France (represented initially by P. Georgen, subsequently by G. Reuter and C. Verbruggen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by A. Bordes and T. Scharf, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for damages to compensate for the harm allegedly suffered following the Commission’s refusal to intervene in a dispute between the applicant and the Cameroonian State.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Massimo Campailla shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Case C-401/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Sixth VAT Directive — Supply of services — Executor of a will — Place where the service is performed — Article 9(1) and (2)(e))

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-401/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Sixth VAT Directive - Supply of services - Executor of a will - Place where the service is performed - Article 9(1) and (2)(e))
   (2008/C 22/18)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 9(2)(e) of 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Services supplied by executors for customers established outside the Community or for taxable persons established in the Community but not in the same country as the supplier — Place of supply of services — Characterisation of activities of executors
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay, in addition to its own costs, those of the Federal Republic of Germany.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case T-470/14: Judgment of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Hewlett Packard Development Company v OHIM (ELITEPAD) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark ELITEPAD — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Hewlett Packard Development Company v OHIM (ELITEPAD)
   (Case T-470/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark ELITEPAD - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 406/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hewlett Packard Development Company LP (Houston, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Raab and H. Lauf, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 March 2014 (Case R 884/2013-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ELITEPAD as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hewlett Packard Development Company LP to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.


title: Case T-476/09: Action brought on 30 November 2009 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/65

         Action brought on 30 November 2009 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER)
   (Case T-476/09)
   2010/C 24/115
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: ATB Norte, SL (Burgos, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda, G. Macías Bonilla, H.L. Curtis-Oliver and G. Marín Raigal, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bricocenter Italia Srl (Rozzano Milanofiori (Milan), Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2009 — R 1006/2008-4.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Bricocenter Italia S.r.l.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘BRICOCENTER’ (Application No 4 934 212) in respect of services in Class 35.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ATB Norte, SL.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative Community trade marks containing the word elements ‘CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTRO’ (No 3 262 623) and ‘ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTRO’ (No 989 046) in respect of services in Classes 35, 37 and 39.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition Division’s decision annulled and the opposition rejected in its entirety.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-346/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratrif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — SICAV GA Fund B v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/35

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratrif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — SICAV GA Fund B v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat
   (Case C-346/11)
   2011/C 269/72
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal Administratrif de Montreuil

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SICAV GA Fund B

      Defendant: Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the situation of the shareholders be taken into account together with that of undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS)?

               2.

               If so, what are the conditions under which the withholding tax at issue may be regarded as consistent with the principle of free movement of capital?


title: Case T-326/15: Order of the General Court of 20 April 2016 — Dima v EUIPO (Shape of a box consisting of two open cubes) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Form of a box consisting of two open cubes — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/21

         Order of the General Court of 20 April 2016 — Dima v EUIPO (Shape of a box consisting of two open cubes)
   (Case T-326/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Form of a box consisting of two open cubes - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2016/C 222/25)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dima Verwaltungs GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Kerkhoff, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: initially A. Graul and A. Schikfo, then A. Graul and M. Fischer acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2015 (Case R 2567/2014-5) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a box composed of two open cubes as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Dima Verwaltungs GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.


title: Case T-429/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2008 — Trubowest Handel GmbH and Makarov v Council and Commission (Non-contractual liability — Anti-dumping duties — Anti-dumping Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 — Lawyers' fees incurred in domestic proceedings — Inadmissibility — Material and non-material damage — Causal link)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/43

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2008 — Trubowest Handel GmbH and Makarov v Council and Commission
   (Case T-429/04) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Anti-dumping duties - Anti-dumping Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 - Lawyers' fees incurred in domestic proceedings - Inadmissibility - Material and non-material damage - Causal link)
   (2008/C 209/74)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Trubowest Handel GmbH (Cologne, Germany) and Viktor Makarov, (Cologne), (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and E. Petritsi, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and G. Berrisch, lawyer) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by N. Khan and T. Scharf, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for compensation under Article 288 EC, in respect of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants by reason of the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the Republic of Croatia (OJ 1997 L 322, p. 1).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Trubowest Handel GmbH and Victor Makarov to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the Council and the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 5.2.2005.


title: Case T-618/16: Order of the General Court of 24 April 2017 — Dreimane v Commission (Action for annulment and compensation — Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Calculation of years of pensionable service — Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Time-limit — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/19

         Order of the General Court of 24 April 2017 — Dreimane v Commission
   (Case T-618/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment and compensation - Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Calculation of years of pensionable service - Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - Time-limit - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 202/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sandra Dreimane (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Ābiks, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission decision fixing the number of additional pensionable years to be taken into account in the pension scheme of the EU institutions following the applicant’s request to transfer pension rights acquired before she entered the service of the European Union, and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s failure to act within a reasonable period in the processing of that transfer request.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to rule on the application to intervene submitted by the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               Ms Sandra Dreimane shall bear her own costs and also pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-48/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-490/07: Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Notartel v OHIM — SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen (R.U.N.)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/45

         Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Notartel v OHIM — SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen (R.U.N.)
   (Case T-490/07)
   (2008/C 64/75)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Notartel SpA — (Notaries' information technology company) (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Bosshard and M. Balestriero, avvocati)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH (Berlin, Germany)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Primarily, annul, in part, the decision of OHIM's Fourth Board of Appeal of 22 October 2007 in Case R 1267/2006-4, in so far as it upheld the opposition;

               —

               Alternatively, annul, in part, the decision of OHIM's Fourth Board of Appeal of 22 October 2007 in Case R 1267/2006-4, in so far as it upheld the opposition in respect of the mark sought for Class 38;

               —

               In any event, reject any possible future contrary application or claim, by way of confirming the decision in so far as it is not impugned in this case;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘R.U.N.’ (Community trade mark application No 1,069,863 for services in Classes 35, 38 and 42, as regards these proceedings).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national word mark ‘ran’, for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed in part, in respect of some services in Classes 38 and 42.

      Pleas in law: The contested decision is vitiated by a logical contradiction which consists in enunciating a series of correct legal principles stated to be mandatory in the assessment of the similarity between signs and goods/services for the purposes of establishing the ground of refusal under the first part of Article 73 of the Community trade mark regulation, whilst however applying different criteria in evaluating the actual case in point. Such logical contradiction therefore gives rise either to an error of law, by the application of legal principles different to those (correct) ones stated in the legal basis of the decision, or to inconsistency and insufficiency in the reasoning.


title: Case C-30/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Linköpings tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 19 January 2010 — Lotta Andersson v Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmyndigheten

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Linköpings tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 19 January 2010 — Lotta Andersson v Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmyndigheten
   (Case C-30/10)
   2010/C 100/26
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Linköpings tingsrätt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lotta Andersson

      Defendant: Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmyndigheten

      Question referred

   Is a national provision which excludes an employee from a preferential right on the basis that he, on his own or together with his close relatives, more recently than six months before the application for a declaration of insolvency, was the owner of an essential part of the employer’s undertaking or business and had a considerable influence on its activities compatible with Article 10(c) of Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 (1) amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer? (2)

      (1)  OJ L 270, p. 10.

      (2)  OJ L 283, p. 23.


title: Case T-195/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Solvay Solexis v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Duration of infringement — Concept of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’ — Access to the file — Fines — Equal treatment — Leniency Notice — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Solvay Solexis v Commission
   (Case T-195/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of infringement - Concept of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’ - Access to the file - Fines - Equal treatment - Leniency Notice - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
   2011/C 226/42
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Solvay Solexis SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Salonico and G.L. Zampa, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by V. Di Bucci and F. Amato, and subsequently by V. Di Bucci and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) and for a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Solvay Solexis SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case C-425/05: Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/53

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-425/05) (1)

   (2006/C 326/109)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.02.2006.


title: Action brought on 21 August 1998 by Takis Ageladarakis and Others against the Commission of the European Communities and the Council of the European Union (Case T-137/98)

text:
C 378/18             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.12.98
protected designation of origin Altenburger Ziegenkäse'            Action brought on 21 August 1998 by Takis Ageladarakis
for too large a geographical area Ð the Court of                    and Others against the Commission of the European
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: A.                        Communities and the Council of the European Union
Kalageropoulos, President, and C. W. Bellamy and J.                                          (Case T-137/98)
Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given an order on
15 September 1998, in which it:                                                               (98/C 378/34)
1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;                                         (Language of the case: English)
2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to             An action against the Commission of the European
     bear jointly and severally the costs of the Commission         Communities and the Council of the European Union was
     and the intervening party, Molkerei und Weichkäserei           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
     K.-H. Zimmermann GmbH;                                         Communities on 21 August 1998 by Takis Ageladarakis,
                                                                    represented by Kenneth Parker QC and Rhodri
                                                                    Thompson, Monckton Chambers, 4 Raymond Buildings,
3. Orders Freistaat Thüringen to bear its own costs.                Gray's Inn, London WC1R 5BP, United Kingdom.
(1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð make a declaration that the rejection of the applicants'
                                                                         complaint whereby the Commission and Council failed
                                                                         to take any specific measures vis-aÁ-vis the applicants
                                                                         to implement the judgment of the Court in Joined
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Cases T-177/94 and T-377/94 Altmann et al. v.
                       (First Chamber)                                   Commission of 12 December 1996 is unlawful and a
                                                                         service-related fault for which the Commission and
                     of 12 October 1998                                  Council are liable;
in Case T-235/97: Franco Campoli v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)                          Ð order that the Commission and Council pay the
                                                                         applicants the individual sums set out in the Schedule
(Officials Ð Judgment of the Court of First Instance Ð
                                                                         attached to the Application at Annex 7 hereto,
Application for review of classification in grade Ð Plea of
                                                                         modified to the date of judgment; and, in the event
    inadmissibility Ð New material fact Ð Admissibility)
                                                                         that no order is made in respect of the applicants'
                        (98/C 378/33)                                    liability for United Kingdom taxation on such sums;
                (Language of the case: Italian)                          such further som as may represent:
                                                                         (i) the sum payable by the applicants in respect of
In Case T-235/97: Franco Campoli, an official of the
                                                                              United Kingdom taxation, the quantification of
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                              such sums being adjourned pending negotiation
Brussels, represented by Sergio Diana, of the Cagliari and
                                                                              between the parties and the United Kingdom tax
Brussels Bars, 205 Rue Belliard, Brussels, against the
                                                                              authorities; alternatively
Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð application for annulment, first, of
the Commission's Decision of 16 October 1996 rejecting                   (ii) the actual liabilities for which the applicants are
the applicant's application for a review of his classification                liable to the United Kingdom tax authorities, the
and, second, of the Commission's Decision of 29 April                         Council and Commission being liable to indemnify
1997 rejecting the complaint against the Decision of                          the applicants in respect of any such contingent
16 October 1996 Ð the Court of First Instance (First                          liability; and
Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, J.
Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made            Ð order that the Council and Commission bear the costs
an order on 12 October 1998, the operative part of which                 of the proceedings.
is as follows:
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                    The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
2. The parties shall bear their own costs.                          those raised in Case T-30/98 (1).
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                           (1) OJ C 184, 13.6.1998, p. 11.


title: Case F-97/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2010 — Füller-Tomlinson v European Parliament (Civil service — Former member of the temporary staff — Occupational disease — Physical or mental harm — Duration of the procedure for the recognition of the occupational nature of the disease)

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/32

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2010 — Füller-Tomlinson v European Parliament
   (Case F-97/08) (1)

   (Civil service - Former member of the temporary staff - Occupational disease - Physical or mental harm - Duration of the procedure for the recognition of the occupational nature of the disease)
   2010/C 274/48
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Paulette Füller-Tomlinson (Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: K. Zejdová and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision establishing the part of the partial permanent invalidity attributable to the occupational nature of a disease affecting the applicant at 20 %, as well as, in the alternative, an order against the defendant to pay a sum in damages for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Ms Füller-Tomlinson to bear all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009, p. 76.


title: Case T-617/11: Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Meyr-Melnhof Karton v OHIM — Stora Enso (SILVAWHITE)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/37

         Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Meyr-Melnhof Karton v OHIM — Stora Enso (SILVAWHITE)
   (Case T-617/11)
   2012/C 32/73
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Meyr-Melnhof Karton AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: P. Baronikians and N. Wittich, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stora Enso Oyj (Helsinki, Finland)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 September 2011 in case R 2139/2010-2;

               —

               Reject the opposition against the Community trade mark application No 8197469; and

               —

               Order that the defendant pays the applicant’s costs incurred before OHIM and the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SILVAWHITE’, for goods in class 16 — Community trade mark application No 8197469

      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: Finnish trade mark registration No 231953 of the word ‘SILVAPRESS’, for goods in class 16; International trade mark registration No 872793 of the word ‘SILVAPRESS’, for goods in class 16

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly ruled that likelihood of confusion exists between the earlier mark and the Community trade mark application.


title: Case C-412/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany lodged on 10 July 2017 — Federal Republic of Germany v Touring Tours und Travel GmbH

text:
               2.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany lodged on 10 July 2017 — Federal Republic of Germany v Touring Tours und Travel GmbH
   (Case C-412/17)
   (2017/C 330/08)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Federal Republic of Germany

      Applicant and respondent on a point of law: Touring Tours und Travel GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Article 67(2) TFEU and Articles 22 and 23 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Control) (1) preclude a provision of national law of a Member State which has the effect of requiring bus undertakings operating regular services across a Schengen internal border to check their passengers’ travel documents before crossing an internal border in order to prevent foreign nationals not in possession of a passport or residence permit from being brought into the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany?
               In particular:

                           (a)

                           Does the general statutory duty, or the administrative obligation directed at individual carriers, not to bring into federal territory foreign nationals not in possession of a passport or residence permit as required, which is properly discharged only if carriers check all passengers’ travel documents before crossing an internal border, constitute, or fall to be treated as, a check on persons at internal borders within the meaning of Article 22 of the Schengen Borders Code?

                           (b)

                           Is the imposition of the duties referred to in point 1 to be assessed by reference to Article 23(a) of the Schengen Borders Code, even though carriers do not exercise ‘police powers’ within the meaning of that provision and, moreover, do not formally enjoy any powers of public authority by virtue of the State-imposed obligation to carry out checks?

                           (c)

                           If the answer to Question 1(b) is in the affirmative, do the checks which carriers are required to carry out, taking into account the criteria laid down in the second sentence of Article 23(a) of the Schengen Borders Code, constitute an impermissible measure having an effect equivalent to border checks?

                           (d)

                           Is the imposition of the duties referred to in point 1, in so far as it concerns bus undertakings operating regular services, to be assessed by reference to Article 23(b) of the Schengen Borders Code, which provides that the absence of border control at internal borders is not to affect the power of carriers to carry out security checks on persons at ports and airports? Does it follow from this that checks within the meaning of Question 1 are impermissible even when carried out other than at ports and airports if they do not constitute security checks and are not also carried out on persons travelling within a Member State?

               2.

               Do Articles 22 and 23 of the Schengen Borders Code permit provisions of national law under which, for the purposes of ensuring compliance with that duty, an order imposing a prohibition on pain of a penalty payment may be made against a bus undertaking in cases where the failure to carry out checks has enabled even foreign nationals not in possession of a passport or residence permit to be brought into the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany?

      (1)  OJ 2016 L 77, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 March 2001 in Case T-206/99: Métropole Télévision SA v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Rejection of a complaint — Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling an exemption decision of the Commission — Duty to state reasons — Obligations in relation to the investigation of complaints)

text:
2.6.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 161/17
represented by A. Dashwood and W.-J. Outhwaite, Barristers,                1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 29 June 1999, rejecting
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against European                      the complaint of Métropole Télévision SA of 5 December
Investment Bank (Agents: J.-P. Minnaert, Z. Zachariadis, and                     1997;
A. Barav) — application for annulment of both the decision to
abolish, as of 1 January 1999, the system of special conversion            2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
rates and the salary statements of the applicants in which that
decision was applied — the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President, K. Lenaerts and
M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the             (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.99.
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2001, in which it:
1.    Annuls the applicants’ salary statements for January 1999 in
      so far as the system of special conversion rates is not applied in
      them;
2.    Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible;
3.    Orders the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 6 March 2001
(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.99.
                                                                           in Case T-100/00: Franco Campoli v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Transfer/Reassignment — Statement of
                                                                              reasons — Misuse of powers — Interests of the service)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/38)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                          of 20 March 2001
                                                                           In Case T-100/00: Franco Campoli, an official of the Com-
in Case T-206/99: Métropole Télévision SA v Commission                     mission of the European Communities, residing at Brussels,
                of the European Communities (1)                            represented by S. Diana, Avocat, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties (Agents: G. Valsesia and D. Waelbroeck) — first, appli-
(Competition — Rejection of a complaint — Compliance                       cation for the annulment of the decision of the Commission
with a judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling an                transferring the applicant from the ‘Foodstuffs — Legislation
exemption decision of the Commission — Duty to state                       and scientific and technical aspects’ unit 1 to the ‘Food
reasons — Obligations in relation to the investigation of                  production and biotechnology’ unit 2 of Industry Directorate E
                             complaints)                                   of DG III as well as the decision to appoint another official to
                                                                           the ‘Foodstuffs — Legislation and scientific and technical
                                                                           aspects’ unit as deputy-head and, secondly, a claim for damages
                           (2001/C 161/37)                                 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
                                                                           P. Lindh , President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke,
                                                                           Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, gave a judgment on
                     (Language of the case: French)                        6 March 2001, in which it:
                                                                           1.    dismisses the application;
In Case T-206/99: Métropole Télévision SA, established in
Paris (France), represented by D. Théophile, Avocat, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the               2.    orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.
European Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner and B. Mongin)
— application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision
of 29 June 1999 rejecting the complaint lodged by Métropole                (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.00.
Télévision on 5 December 1997 — the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura
Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig, administrator, for
the Registrar gave a judgment on 21 March 2001, in which it:


title: Case T-137/08: Action brought on 9 April 2008 — BCS v OHIM — Deere (Combination of colours green and yellow)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/33

         Action brought on 9 April 2008 — BCS v OHIM — Deere (Combination of colours green and yellow)
   (Case T-137/08)
   (2008/C 142/60)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: BCS SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Franzosi, V. Jandoli, F. Santonocito, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Deere & Company (Moline, United States)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 16 January 2008 in case R 0222/2007-2; and

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: A figurative mark consisting of the colour combination of green and yellow for goods in classes 7 and 12 — Community trade mark No 63 289

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Deere & Company

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(3), 52(1)(c) in connection with Article 8(4) and Article 73(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as:

               —

               the Board of Appeal ought to have interpreted Article 7(3) very strictly and, accordingly, should have imposed a rigorous burden of proof on the other party to the proceedings;

               —

               the Board of Appeal failed to recognize the prior de facto trade mark of the applicant; and

               —

               the Board of Appeal used contradictory reasoning in its decision.


title: Case C-210/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 18 April 2013 — Glaxosmithline Biologicals SA, Glaxosmithkline Biologicals, Niederlassung der Smithkline Beecham Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 18 April 2013 — Glaxosmithline Biologicals SA, Glaxosmithkline Biologicals, Niederlassung der Smithkline Beecham Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
   (Case C-210/13)
   2013/C 189/15
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Glaxosmithline Biologicals SA, Glaxosmithkline Biologicals, Niederlassung der Smithkline Beecham Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

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

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is an adjuvant which has no therapeutic effect on its own, but which enhances the therapeutic effect of an antigen when combined with that antigen in a vaccine, an ‘active ingredient’ within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Regulation 469/2009/EC (1)?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is no, can the combination of such an adjuvant with an antigen nevertheless be regarded as a ‘combination of active ingredients’ within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Regulation 469/2009/EC?

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


title: Case T-239/99: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006 — Alofs v Commission

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/30

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006 — Alofs v Commission
   (Case T-239/99) (1)

   (2006/C 261/58)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Second Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2000.


title: Case T-302/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 October 2008 — Motorpress v OHIM — Sony Computer Entertainment Europe (BUZZ!)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/65

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 October 2008 — Motorpress v OHIM — Sony Computer Entertainment Europe (BUZZ!)
   (Case T-302/07) (1)

   (2008/C 301/124)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Case T-63/99: Action brought on 3 March 1999 by RJB Mining plc against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 160/26              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.6.1999
Action brought on 2 March 1999 by Dominique Rafoni,                      Action brought on 3 March 1999 by RJB Mining plc
court-appointed administrator, acting as liquidator of                     against the Commission of the European Communities
Société de distribution mécanique et d’automobiles (Sodi-
ma), against the Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties                                                                (Case T-63/99)
                         (Case T-62/99)                                                           (1999/C 160/49)
                        (1999/C 160/48)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               European Communities on 3 March 1999 by RJB Mining plc,
European Communities on 2 March 1999 by Dominique                        represented by Mark Brealey and Jonathan Lawrence, with an
Rafoni, court-appointed administrator, acting as liquidator of           address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt
Société de distribution mécanique et d’automobiles (Sodima),             & Medernach, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt.
residing at Aix en Provence (France), represented by Jean
Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service           The applicant claims that the Court should:
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4, rue
Béatrix de Bourbon.                                                      — annul the contested decision on the grounds set out in this
                                                                             application,
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay the costs of the action,
— annul the Commission’s decision of 5 January 1999,                         including those of the applicant.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The present application is directed against the Commission’s
On 1 July 1994 the applicant submitted to the Commission a               decision of 22 December 1998 [K(1998) 4569 endg.], on
complaint based on articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty and on               subsidies granted by the Federal Republic of Germany (‘Ger-
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 183/85 concerning the                     many’) to the mineral coal industry in 1999, which purports
imposition by the Peugeot company of a dealership system                 to authorise Germany to grant those subsidies.
incompatible with the exemption conditions laid down by that
regulation.
                                                                         According to the applicant, some, but not all, of the issues
In the present case, the applicant, by whom two actions have             raised in this application have been raised in Cases T-110/98 (1)
previously been brought for a declaration that the Commission            and T-12/99 (2), relating to aid paid to the German Coal
has failed to act (1), contests the Commission’s decision of             Industry for 1997 and 1998 respectively.
5 January 1999 definitively rejecting its complaint.
                                                                         The application essentially concerns article 4(c) of the ECSC
In support of its action for annulment, the applicant pleads:            Treaty and Decision 3632/93/ECSC (3), which lays down a
                                                                         code (‘the Code’) under which aid may be approved by the
— failure by the defendant institution to fulfil its obligations         Commission in derogation from article 4(c) aforesaid.
    to maintain and promote competition,
— failure to examine the complaint seriously and objectively,            The applicant submits that
— infringement of essential procedural requirements and                  — The aid in question does not comply with articles 2 to 9 of
    misuse of powers in the conduct of the procedure and the                 the Code, so that the Commission has no competence to
    handling of the evidence,                                                approve it under article 1(1) of the Code.
— infringement of the Treaty and manifest error of assess-               — The contested decision purports to approve aid to under-
    ment of the law,                                                         takings or production units which cannot be considered as
                                                                             viable. Even if, contrary to the applicant’s contention, there
— breach of the obligation to take a definitive decision within              is no obligation on the Commission to demonstrate
    a reasonable time.                                                       long-term viability of undertakings or production units,
                                                                             the defendant has committed a manifest error in failing to
(1) Cases T-190/95 (OJ C 333, 9.12.1995, p. 20) and T-45/96 (OJ              consider whether the reduction of production costs of
    C 145, 18.5.1996, p. 13).                                                recipient undertakings or production units is likely to
                                                                             achieve a degression of aid in the light of falling coal prices
                                                                             on international markets, as required by article 2 (1) of the
                                                                             Code. Finally, the contested decision purports to approve
 ---pagebreak--- 5.6.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 160/27
    extra payments to miners as operating aid under article 3            — order the Commission to pay the costs of the action,
    (2) of the Code, although these payments are not a                        including those of the applicant.
    component of the production costs of the mining under-
    takings.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— The contested decision contains no facts which would
    enable the applicant to verify the viability of any undertak-
    ing or production unit. Furthermore, the contested decision          The application concerns the alleged failure of the Commission
    contains no facts or statements that would enable the                to act in accordance with its obligations under article 4(c)
    applicant to establish whether the reduction in production           ECSC and Commission Decision 3632/93 (‘the Code’) (1) in
    costs was likely to lead to a degression of aid in the light         relation to a state aid inherent in, and conditional on, the
    of falling world coal prices, as required by article 2 of the        merger between Ruhrkohle AG (RAG), Saarbergwerke AG and
    Code.                                                                Preussag Anthrazit GmbH (‘the merger’).
                                                                         The applicant points out that, since March 1998, it has drawn
(1) RJB Mining v. Commission (OJ C 299, 26.9.1998, p. 38).               the Commission’s attention to its serious concern that the
(2) RJB Mining v. Commission, not yet published in the OJ.               merger should not be approved without, inter alia, careful
(3) OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12.                                         examination of certain elements of State aid, which were
                                                                         understood to include:
                                                                         — the symbolic DEM 1 paid for Saarbergwerke,
                                                                         — the agreement by the German Government to make up
                                                                              50 % of the shortfall of an annual DEM 200 million
                                                                              cross-subsidy from RAG’s non-coal activities,
Action brought on 3 March 1999 by RJB Mining plc                         — the waiver by the German Government of aid repayment
  against the Commission of the European Communities                          in the amount of DEM 4 billion, and
                                                                         — an additional subsidy of DEM 1,65 billion if RAG acquired
                         (Case T-64/99)                                       the German Government’s share in Saarbergwerke.
                        (1999/C 160/50)                                  By decision dated 29 July 1998, the Commission approved the
                                                                         merger. However, on 2 December 1998, the Commission
                                                                         adopted a decision, with regard to the German coal industry
                   (Language of the case: English)                       for 1998, which did not contain any reference to the merger,
                                                                         let alone the State aid issues relating to the merger, and even
                                                                         treated the three merged entities as separate undertakings.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 March 1999 by RJB Mining plc,                  The applicant submits that the Commission is under a duty:
represented by Mr Mark Brealey and Mr Jonathan Lawrence,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of             — to examine the grant of State aid to the merged companies,
Arendt & Medernach, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                         — to examine the complaint made on March 1998 that the
                                                                              aid inherent in, and conditional on, the merger was
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              unlawful, and
— annul the implied decision by which the Commission has                 — to record the failure by Germany to comply with article
    refused to examine whether Germany has complied with                      4(c) ECSC and the Code.
    article 4(c) ECSC and the Code in respect of state aid
    inherent in, and conditional on, the merger,
                                                                         The first two of those duties are imposed by virtue of article 8
— annul the implied decision by which the Commission                     ECSC and the Code and the third by article 88 ECSC. Further
    has refused to examine the applicant’s complaint dated               or alternatively, if the Commission is under no such duties and
    16 March 1998 that the aid inherent in, and conditional              is merely empowered to examine the grant of State aid, the
    on, the merger is incompatible with article 4(c) ECSC and            continued refusal to act constitutes a misuse of those powers.
    the Code,
                                                                         (1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12.
— annul the implied decision by which the Commission has
    refused to record the failure of Germany to comply with
    article 4(c) ECSC and the Code in respect of state aid
    inherent in, and conditional on, the merger, and


title: Case C-555/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Leiria (Portugal) lodged on 28 October 2015 — Bernard Jean Marie Gabarel v Fazenda Pública

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Leiria (Portugal) lodged on 28 October 2015 — Bernard Jean Marie Gabarel v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-555/15)
   (2016/C 016/25)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Leiria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bernard Jean Marie Gabarel

      Defendant: Fazenda Pública

      Questions referred

               A.

               For the purposes of the interpretation of Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006, should non-conventional therapies, in particular osteopathy, be regarded as paramedical activities?

               B.

               Must a taxable person who is authorised under national law to practise a paramedical activity, namely physiotherapy, but who in the context of his professional health activity uses either indistinctly or complementarily both therapies characteristic of physiotherapy and therapies characteristic of osteopathy be regarded, for the purposes of Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC and, consequently, for the purposes of Article 9 of the CIVA [(Code on VAT)], as a professional who, overall, carries out a paramedical activity which is, accordingly, exempt from VAT?

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


title: Case T-252/15: Action brought on 21 May 2015 — Ferrovial and others v Commission

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/35

         Action brought on 21 May 2015 — Ferrovial and others v Commission
   (Case T-252/15)
   (2015/C 245/41)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Ferrovial, SA (Madrid, Spain), Ferrovial Servicios, SA (Madrid, Spain), Amey UK plc (Oxford, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez and M. Linares Gil, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Forms of order sought

               —

               annul European Commission Decision C (2014) 7280 of 15 October 2014, on State aid SA 35550 (13/C) (ex 13/NN) (ex 12/CP) implemented by Spain;

               —

               in the alternative annul Article 4(2) of that Decision, and

               —

               order the defendant institution to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The contested decision in this case is the same as that in Case T-826/14, Spain v Commission, and Case T-12/15, Banco de Santander and Santusa v Commission.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU on the ground of failure to state reasons.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, since, according to the applicants the measure under assessment does not meet the criteria to constitute state aid.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU, Article 1(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999, laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, and Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004, implementing Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, since the measure under assessment does not constitute new, unlawful and incompatible aid.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging the invalidity of Article 4(2) of the Third Decision on the ground of infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999, by failing to limit the recovery order in the same terms as the first two decisions did (acquisitions earlier than 21 December 2007).

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging the invalidity of Article 4 of the Third Decision (recovery order) on the ground of infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999, by not excluding indirect operations before 10 March 2005 from the recovery order.


title: Case C-25/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 29 August 2002 in the proceedings between Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach and Hans U. Hundt-Eßwein

text:
C 70/10                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.3.2003
2.    Publ i c s to rag e of cerea l s                                     (Federal Finance Court) of 29 August 2002, received at the
                                                                           Court Registry on 23 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling
The Commission claims that the AIMA, since abolished, in the               in the proceedings between Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach and
                                                                           Hans U. Hundt-Eßwein on the following questions:
course of taking over cereals during the marketing year 1997-
1998, failed to fix the first day on which the consignment was
taken over in the communication accepting the offer, so that               1.    Is a person who purchases or builds a house for his own
the date for setting the price was the date of first actual delivery             residential purposes acting as a taxable person in the
by the offeror. In the Commission’s view, that entailed a                        purchasing or building of that residence if he intends to
greater expenditure for the EAGGF than it might otherwise                        use one of its rooms as a ‘home office’ for engaging in a
have been liable for if the AIMA, while not having fixed the                     sideline activity as a self-employed person?
delivery date beforehand, had nevertheless taken as a reference
date the day following the date of the letter of acceptance of
the offer, when delivery could potentially have begun. AGEA,
the paying agency, does not agree with the position adopted                If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
by the Commission inasmuch as Regulation No 689/92 (4)
does not provide at all for the day following the date of the
letter of acceptance of the offer being adopted as the basis for           2.    Where a community by undivided shares or marital
calculating the price to be paid for takeover of the goods.                      community which does not itself operate as a business
Moreover, the regulation itself empowers the intervention                        places an order in common for a capital item, should it
agency to lay down the delivery schedule, so that AIMA                           be assumed that the purchase concerned is made by a
assumes the schedule agreed between the storekeeper and the                      non-taxable person who is not entitled to deduct the
offeror.                                                                         value added tax charged on the purchase as input tax, or
                                                                                are the members of that community recipients of the
                                                                                transaction performed?
3.    Premi um i n th e ra w to bac co sect or
A review by the European Court of Auditors has shown an                    If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
error consisting in failure to observe the guarantee threshold
in respect of the 01 tobacco variety for the 1998 marketing
year.                                                                      3.    Where spouses in a community by undivided shares
                                                                                purchase a capital item but that item is used by only one
Such an error did not lead to the specific guarantee threshold                   of those two spouses for the purposes of his business:
for the remaining varieties being exceeded in the year in
question.                                                                        (a)   is that spouse entitled to effect only a pro rata
                                                                                deduction in respect of the input tax attributable to
( 1) Commission Decision of 5 November 2002 excluding from
                                                                                his share as purchaser,
     Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member
     States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural                   or
     Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), OJ 2002 L 306, p. 26.
( 2) OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1.
( 3) OJ 1997 L 100, p. 22.                                                       (b) is that spouse entitled under Article 17(2)(a) of
( 4) OJ 1992 L 74, p. 18.                                                              Directive 77/388/EEC (1) to deduct as input tax the
                                                                                proportion attributable to his business use of the
                                                                                item as a whole (subject to the invoicing require-
                                                                                ments set out in Question 4)?
                                                                           4.    For that spouse/co-owner to exercise his right to deduct
                                                                                in accordance with Article 18 of Directive 77/388/
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                          EEC, must he hold an invoice, as provided for under
hof by order of that Court of 29 August 2002 in the                              Article 22(3) of the directive, which has been issued to
proceedings between Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach and                              him alone and states the proportion of the payments and
                      Hans U. Hundt-Eßwein                                       corresponding tax attributable to him, or is it sufficient
                                                                                for the spouses/co-owners to be issued with the invoice
                          (Case C-25/03)                                         without any such apportionment of the amounts due?
                          (2003/C 70/16)
                                                                           (1 ) OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof


title: Case C-475/10 P: Appeal brought on 1 October 2010 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2010 in Case T-571/08 Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/21

         Appeal brought on 1 October 2010 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2010 in Case T-571/08 Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission
   (Case C-475/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 328/37
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, J. Möller and N. Graf Vitzthum, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 14 July 2010 in Case T-571/08 Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This appeal has been brought against the order of the General Court on a procedural issue dismissing as inadmissible the appellant’s action against the Commission’s information injunction of 30 October 2008 in proceedings concerning State aid to Deutsche Post AG (‘DPAG’).
   By the decision at issue, the Commission ordered the appellant to supply information about all of DPAG’s costs and revenue in the period 1989 to 2007, even though the privatisation of DPAG — in the context of which the transfers at issue were largely made — had already been concluded in 1994. Instead of resolving the preliminary legal issue as to which periods of time are, in fact, to be taken into account, the Commission proceeded to request information about DPAG’s revenue and costs situation in respect of the entire period from privatisation until the present, without giving any consideration to the time and expenditure involved. The Commission thereby placed an unreasonable burden on the appellant and on the undertaking concerned.
   The Court of Justice is required to clarify, fundamentally, whether the Commission may in fact require a Member State to supply any information at all in State aid proceedings without being subject to direct judicial review. If the General Court’s legal assessment that such decisions are unchallengeable is correct, the Member States and undertakings concerned would always be required to go to considerable — also financial — lengths in order to comply with such injunctions, even though they regard them as unlawful. Moreover, there is a risk of proliferation of business secrets, knowledge of which may in certain circumstances be entirely irrelevant to the State aid proceedings.
   The General Court’s order under appeal is erroneous in law in a number of respects.
   First, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the concept of a challengeable act and failed to have regard to the relevant case-law in so far as it considered the act being challenged ‘on the basis of its substance’. An assessment of an act on the basis of its material legal effects is relevant only if there is no decision available which is binding on the basis of its legal form alone. Given that the binding nature of the Commission decision at issue, adopted pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation No 659/1999, derives from its legal form alone, there is no need to examine further whether the measure was specifically intended by its author to produce legal effects with regard to the appellant.
   Second, the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the provisional nature of the information injunction in that, by reference to case-law concerning the admissibility of an action brought against the initiation of an investigation procedure under competition law, it erroneously concluded that the definitive nature of the decision is relevant also to the admissibility of the action against the Commission’s information injunction at issue.
   Third, the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the legal effects of the information injunction in that it failed to recognise that a measure produces binding legal effects if it is capable of affecting the interests of the person to whom it is addressed by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position. Such is the case with regard to an information injunction, since failure to comply with it entails sanctions, as can be seen from the fact that Member States are precluded from relying on the proposition that the factual basis of the case is incomplete and the Commission is permitted to take a decision on the basis of the documents in the file. Moreover, it entails a lowering of the standard of proof by reference to which the Commission can assume that the facts asserted by it have been proved. This represents a procedural advantage for the Commission and an associated worsening of the relevant Member State’s position in the main investigation procedure. As a result of the information injunction, the appellant was faced with the choice of not complying with its obligations — while being precluded from invoking the proposition that the factual basis of the case is incomplete and the Commission’s standard of proof is lowered — or being de facto compelled to supply a disproportionate amount of information in order to protect its rights of defence. The latter, in addition to the legal disadvantage suffered, invariably entails an extraordinary amount of time and expense for which no compensation is provided. Beyond the scope of the main proceedings also, the information injunction can produce legal effects with regard to the Member State concerned, in so far as non-compliance could lead to infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU and, in extreme cases, to penalty payment proceedings under Article 260 TFEU.
   Fourth, the General Court’s decision is contrary to the rule of law and the requirement of legal certainty in that it deems the only protection against an excessive information injunction to be non-compliance. Such an approach is unreasonable and infringes the principles referred to above. Legal protection against unlawful information injunctions cannot be dependent on a Member State’s non-compliance with such an injunction. The possibility of challenging an information injunction represents the only means of preventing the Member State’s duty of loyalty from being exposed to the Commission’s unfettered discretion and, in turn, allows the Commission to comply with its duty of sincere cooperation with the Member States.
   Finally, the General Court erred in its assessment of responsibilities in State aid cases in so far as it determined that protection against excessive information injunctions is afforded by Member States’ refusal to supply information which, in their view, is not required for the purposes of ascertaining the facts. That entails the transfer to the Member States of the duty to ascertain the facts and to determine the subject-matter of the procedure, a transfer which is alien to the division of responsibilities under State aid law. The transfer of responsibilities indicated by the General Court is incompatible with the division of competences provided for in Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, exposes the Member States to the risk of an error of assessment and absolves the Commission to the extent indicated above from the duty to undertake a careful examination of the facts in administrative proceedings.