title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 January 2001 in Case C-429/97: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — VAT — Eighth Directive — Refund of VAT paid in another Member State — Sixth Directive — Place of supply — Services relating to the collection, sorting, transport and disposal of waste)

text:
19.5.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 150/7
1.      Declares that, by failing to bring into force all of the laws,      1.    Declares that, by failing to bring into force within the prescribed
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply               period the national measures transposing Articles 4(2), 6(1),
      with Articles 8(3) and 9(2) of Directive 97/13/EC of the                    (3) and (4), 7, 8(2), (3), (4) and (6), 11(2) and 12 of
      European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on                  Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the
      a common framework for general authorisations and individual                Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of
      licences in the field of telecommunications services, the Grand             personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommuni-
      Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under              cations sector, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
      that directive;                                                             obligations under Article 15 of that directive;
2.     Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear the costs.              2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 192 of 8.07.2000.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.02.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                           (Fourth Chamber)                                                         of 25 January 2001
                          of 18 January 2001                                in Case C-429/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
in Case C-151/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                       ties v French Republic (1)                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — VAT
                                                                            — Eighth Directive — Refund of VAT paid in another
                                                                            Member State — Sixth Directive — Place of supply —
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      Services relating to the collection, sorting, transport and
Directive 97/66/EC — Processing of personal data and                                                  disposal of waste)
protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector —
                           Non-transposition)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/13)
                            (2001/C 150/12)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                          In Case C-429/97: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agents: H. Michard and E. Traversa) v French Republic
                                                                            (Agents: initially by K. Rispal-Bellanger and G. Mignot, then by
In Case C-151/00: Commission of the European Communities                    K. Rispal-Bellanger and S. Seam,) — application for a declar-
(Agent: B. Mongin) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-                    ation that, by refusing to refund value added tax to taxable
Bellanger and A. Lercher) — application for a declaration that,             persons not established in France, in cases where those taxable
by failing to bring into force and to communicate to the                    persons had subcontracted part of their work to a taxable
Commission within the prescribed period the national                        person established in France, the French Republic has failed
measures transposing Articles 4(2), 6(1), (3) and (4), 7, 8(2),             to fulfil its obligations under the Eighth Council Directive
(3), (4) and (6), 11(2) and 12 of Directive 97/66/EC of the                 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of
European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997                  the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
concerning the processing of personal data and the protection               Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable
of privacy in the telecommunications sector (OJ 1998 L 24,                  persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ
p. 1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations             1979 L 331, p. 11), in particular Article 2 thereof — the Court
under Article 15 of that directive — the Court (Fourth                      (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the                      Chamber, V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges;
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges;                N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 January 2001, in
judgment on 18 January 2001, in which it:                                   which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 150/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.5.2001
1.    Declares that, by refusing to refund to taxable persons              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-
      established in a Member State other than the French Republic,        richtshof (Federal Court of Justice) — by order of that
      who are holders of a main contract for a composite supply of         court of 23 November 2000 in the case of Winward
      services relating to waste disposal, the value added tax which                                  Industries Inc.
      they have been required to pay to the French State in cases
      where they have subcontracted part of the work covered by such                                  (Case C-54/01)
      a contract to a taxable person established in France, the French
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Eighth
      Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the                                        (2001/C 150/15)
      harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
      turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the       European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof
      country, in particular Article 2 thereof;                            of 23 November 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                           Registry on 8 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                          case of Winward Industries Inc. on the following questions on
                                                                           the interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the First
3.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                         Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1) to
                                                                           approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
(1) OJ C 55 of 20.02.1998.                                                 marks:
                                                                           1.    In determining whether a three-dimensional trade mark
                                                                                which depicts the shape of a product has distinctive
                                                                                character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the
                                                                                above directive is there a stricter test for distinctive
                                                                                character than in the case of other forms of trade marks?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-
richtshof (Federal Court of Justice) — by order of that                    2.    In the case of three-dimensional trade marks which depict
    court of 23 November 2000 in the case of Linde AG                            the shape of the product, does Article 3(1)(c) of the
                                                                                Directive have any significance independently of
                                                                                Article 3(1)(e)? If so, when considering Article 3(1)(c) —
                           (Case C-53/01)                                        or alternatively Article 3(1)(e) — must regard be had to
                                                                                the interest of the trade in having the shape of the product
                          (2001/C 150/14)                                        available for use, so that registration is, at least in
                                                                                principle, ruled out and is possible as a rule only in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           case of trade marks which meet the requirements of
European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof                        Article 3(3), first sentence, of the directive?
of 23 November 2000, which was received at the Court
Registry on 8 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Linde AG on the following questions on the                     (1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.
interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the First Council
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1) to approximate
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks:
1.    In determining whether a three-dimensional trade mark
      which depicts the shape of a product has distinctive
      character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the
      above directive is there a stricter test for distinctive             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-
      character than in the case of other forms of trade marks?            richtshof (Federal Court of Justice) — by order of that
                                                                           court of 23 November 2000 in the case of Rado Uhren
2.    In the case of three-dimensional trade marks which depict                                             AG
      the shape of the product, does Article 3(1)(c) of the
      Directive have any significance independently of                                                (Case C-55/01)
      Article 3(1)(e)? If so, when considering Article 3(1)(c) —
      or alternatively Article 3(1)(e) — must regard be had to
      the interest of the trade in having the shape of the product                                   (2001/C 150/16)
      available for use, so that registration is, at least in
      principle, ruled out and is possible as a rule only in the           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      case of trade marks which meet the requirements of                   European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof
      Article 3(3), first sentence, of the directive?                      of 23 November 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                           Registry on 8 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.                                                    case of Rado Uhren AG on the following questions on the
                                                                           interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the First Council
                                                                           Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1) to approximate
                                                                           the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks:


title: Case C-636/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Roca Sanitario, SA v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of equal treatment — Proportionality — Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Roca Sanitario, SA v European Commission
   (Case C-636/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of equal treatment - Proportionality - Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction))
   (2017/C 104/11)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Roca Sanitario, SA (represented by: J. Folguera Crespo, P. Vidal Martínez and E. Navarro Varona, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Roca Sanitario SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Case T-92/13: Action brought on 15 February 2013 — Philips v Commission

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/35

         Action brought on 15 February 2013 — Philips v Commission
   (Case T-92/13)
   2013/C 108/84
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: J. de Pree and S. Molin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 5 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes, in so far as it concerns Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.;

               —

               In the alternative, annul or reduce the fines imposed on Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. in Article 2 of the contested decision, and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement, and violation of the principle of legal certainty, in that the Commission established infringements of the Philips Group and attributed liability to the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 EEA Agreement and Article 27(1) Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), violation of the rights of defence, including the right to be heard and the principle of sound administration, in that the Commission did not attribute liability to LG Philips Displays (‘LPD’) for its own alleged infringements.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of equal treatment, manifest error of assessment, breach of the obligation to state reasons, breach of Article 27 Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and Article 15 Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (2), and violation of the rights of defence including the principle of sound administration and the right to be heard, in that the Commission, applied different standards to undertakings subject to the same proceedings when attributing liability for the alleged infringements and in that the Commission applied different standards when setting the fine for undertakings subject to the same proceedings.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement, breach of Article 23 Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and the Fining Guidelines (3), and violation of the principle of equal treatment, in that the Commission included sales made outside the EEA in the relevant turnover for calculating the basic amount of the fines.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 23 Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and the Fining Guidelines, in that the Commission did not calculate the relevant turnover on the basis of the last full business year of participation in the alleged infringements.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 23 Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 by not applying the 10 % turnover limit to the LPD Group's turnover for fines imposed for alleged the infringements of the LPD Group.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of reasonable time, Article 41 and 47 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality; request that the Court exercise its unlimited jurisdiction pursuant to Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 to reduce the fines imposed on the applicant.

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18)

      (3)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2)


title: Case T-353/16: Order of the General Court of 26 January 2017 — European Social Enterprise Law Association v EUIPO (EUROPEAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE LAW ASSOCIATION) (EU trade mark — Representation of the applicant by a lawyer who is not a third party — Inadmissibility)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/32

         Order of the General Court of 26 January 2017 — European Social Enterprise Law Association v EUIPO (EUROPEAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE LAW ASSOCIATION)
   (Case T-353/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Representation of the applicant by a lawyer who is not a third party - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 078/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Social Enterprise Law Association (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Fletcher, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2016 (Case R 2208/2015-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign EUROPEAN SOCIAL ENTERPRISE LAW ASSOCIATION as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The European Social Enterprise Law Association shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court of 13 December 2001 in Case C-93/00: European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Regulation (EC) No 2772/1999 — Beef labelling system — Competence of the Council)

text:
C 44/4                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.2.2002
Articles 4(2) and 9(2) of Directive 97/33/EC of the European                1.    Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 2772/1999 of
Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection                  21 December 1999 providing for the general rules for a
in Telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and               compulsory beef labelling system;
interoperability through application of the principles of Open
Network Provision (ONP) must be interpreted as not precluding the
Member States from authorising national regulatory authorities to           2.    Orders that the effects of those provisions of the contested
impose on an operator having significant power on the market the ex               regulation pursuant to which the Member States may have
ante obligation to provide access to the local subscriber loop and to             adopted decisions which could be affected by the annulment are
offer interconnection at local and higher-level switching centres.                to be regarded as definitive;
                                                                            3.    Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;
( 1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                                                                            4.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities to bear their own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 13 December 2001
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-93/00: European Parliament v Council of the
                         European Union (1)                                                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 December 2001
(Regulation (EC) No 2772/1999 — Beef labelling system —
                    Competence of the Council)
                                                                            in Case C-131/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Länsrätten i Norrbottens län): Ingemar Nilsson v
                           (2002/C 44/06)                                                  Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens län (1)
                                                                            (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EEC)
                     (Language of the case: French)                         No 3508/92 — Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 — Integrated
                                                                            administration and control system for certain Community
                                                                            aid schemes — Detailed rules for application — Register of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           animals not kept up to date by farmer — Penalties)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/07)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
In Case C-93/00: European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera and
E. Waldherr) v Council of the European Union (Agents:
G. Maganza and J. Monteiro), supported by Kingdom of Spain                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) and by Commission of the                                         in the European Court Reports)
European Communities (Agent: G. Berscheid) — application
for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 2772/1999 of
21 December 1999 providing for the general rules for a
compulsory beef labelling system (OJ 1999 L 334, p. 1) — the                In Case C-131/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,           EC by the Länsrätten i Norrbottens län (Sweden) for a
F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of                       preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
Chambers), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, L. Sevón (Rapporte-            between Ingemar Nilsson and Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens
ur), M. Wathelet, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;              län on the interpretation of Article 5 of Regulation (EEC)
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for             No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated
the Registrar, has given a judgement on 13 December 2001,                   administration and control system for certain Community aid
in which it:                                                                schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),


title: Case T-369/11: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2012 — Diadikasia Symbouloi Epicheiriseon v Commission and Others (Action for damages — Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance — Third country — National public procurement — Decentralised management — Inadmissibility — Lack of jurisdiction)

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/16

         Order of the General Court of 13 September 2012 — Diadikasia Symbouloi Epicheiriseon v Commission and Others
   (Case T-369/11) (1)

   (Action for damages - Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance - Third country - National public procurement - Decentralised management - Inadmissibility - Lack of jurisdiction)
   2012/C 343/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Diadikasia Symbouloi Epicheiriseon AE (Chalandri, Greece) (represented by: A. Krystallidis, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and P. van Nuffel, Agents); European Union Delegation to Turkey (Ankara, Turkey); and Central Finance & Contracts Unit (CFCU) (Ankara, Turkey)

      Re:

   Application for compensation in respect of the damage arising from the CFCU’s decision of 5 April 2011, and any subsequent decision, annulling the award of the contract ‘Enlargement of the European Turkish Business Centres Network to Sivas, Antakya, Batman and Van — EuropeAid/128621/D/SER/TR’ to the consortium Diadikasia Business Consultants SA (GR) — Wyg International Ltd (UK) — Deleeuw International Ltd (TR) — Cyberpark (TR), on the ground of allegedly false declarations

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Diadikasia Symbouloi Epicheiriseon AE shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case C-46/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 28 January 2014 — Jürgen Kaiser v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 28 January 2014 — Jürgen Kaiser v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-46/14)
   2014/C 142/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jürgen Kaiser

      Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

      Question referred

   Is there an obligation on an airline company which wishes to rely on the exemption possibility in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) to set out and prove that all reasonable measures were undertaken by it to avoid the likely consequences of extraordinary circumstances in the shape of cancellation or considerable delay or that no such reasonable measures were available to it?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case T-693/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Hamr — Sport v Commission (State aid — Sports facilities provided by non-profit organisations — Operating or investment subsidies seeking to enable the construction, operation, maintenance, reconstruction or development of sports facilities which are non-profit — Decision declaring the aid to be compatible with the internal market — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Action for annulment — Individual concern — Notion of interested party — Admissibility — No effect on the trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest — No doubts which justify initiating the formal investigation procedure)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Hamr — Sport v Commission
   (Case T-693/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Sports facilities provided by non-profit organisations - Operating or investment subsidies seeking to enable the construction, operation, maintenance, reconstruction or development of sports facilities which are non-profit - Decision declaring the aid to be compatible with the internal market - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Action for annulment - Individual concern - Notion of interested party - Admissibility - No effect on the trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest - No doubts which justify initiating the formal investigation procedure))
   (2016/C 232/16)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Hamr — Sport a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Capoušek, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and T. Müller, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C (2014) 3602 final of 11 June 2014 relating to State aid SA.33575 (2013/NN) — Czech Republic in favour of non-profit sports facilities granted by central public institutions.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hamr — Sport a.s. to pay the costs, except those incurred by the Czech Republic.

               3.

               The Czech Republic must be ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.


title: Action brought on 25 September 1998 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-351/98)

text:
7.11.98                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 340/13
Action brought on 23 September 1998 by the Commission                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
 of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                         (Case C-349/98)                              Ð annul Articles 3 and 4 of Decision C(1998) 2048 of
                                                                          the Commission of 1 July 1998 concerning the Spanish
                          (98/C 340/22)
                                                                          system of aid for the purchase of industrial vehicles
                                                                          (Plan Renove Industrial);
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   Ð order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
23 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Laura Pignataro of its Legal
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                             Ð Infringement of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The measures contained in the Plan Renove Industrial
                                                                          do not constitute aid which is incompatible with the
                                                                          common market, since they do not favour certain
Ð declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and                 undertakings or the production of certain goods and
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                   do not distort competition; consequently, by adopting
     Council Directive 95/18/EC of 19 June 1995 on the                    the contested decision, the Commission has infringed
     licensing of railway undertakings (1) and Council                    Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty. There exists no
     Directive 95/19/EC of 19 June 1995 on the allocation                 discrimination of any kind based on the nationality of
     of railway infrastructure capacity and the charging of               the person acquiring a vehicle; consequently, any
     infrastructure fees (2), the Italian Republic has failed to          national of another Member State is eligible to benefit
     fulfil its obligations under those Directives;                       from the measures provided for in the Plan. The rules
                                                                          laid down by the Plan Renove Industrial do not
Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the                      provide that the vehicle to be withdrawn from
     proceedings.                                                         circulation must be owned by the recipient of aid
                                                                          under that Plan; the vehicle concerned may be owned
                                                                          by a third party with whom the recipient enters into
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       an agreement for that purpose. The fact that the
                                                                          vehicle which is withdrawn must be registered in Spain
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in providing that a directive               does not give rise to any distortion of competition or
is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the                     prejudice haulage contractors established outside
Member State to which it is addressed, places Member                      Spain.
States under an obligation to comply with the time-limits
set by directives for their implementation. In the present                Even if, as the Commission maintains, the directives
case, when the time-limits expired on 27 June 1997, the                   on aid to small and medium-sized undertakings (92/
Italian Republic had not adopted the measures necessary                   C 213/02) are not applicable to the haulage sector, it is
to comply with the Directives named in the Commission's                   undeniable that the reason which prompted the
application.                                                              Commission to adopt the de minimis' rule in those
                                                                          directives does not apply in the circumstances of the
(1) OJ L 143 of 27.6.1995, p. 70.                                         present case, and that aid on such a small scale as that
(2) OJ L 143 of 27.6.1995, p. 75.                                         paid to recipients under the Plan Renove Industrial
                                                                          does not have any appreciable effect on competition or
                                                                          on trade between Member States. In fact, the analysis
                                                                          carried out in relation to recipients of aid under the
                                                                          Plan reaches the following conclusions:
                                                                          1. A considerable number of recipients of aid under
Action brought on 25 September 1998 by the Kingdom
                                                                              the Plan carry on haulage activities on such a
of Spain against the Commission of the European
                                                                              small scale that they do not even require the grant
                           Communities
                                                                              of authorisation by the transport authorities.
                         (Case C-351/98)
                          (98/C 340/23)                                   2. There is a high proportion of type B, C and D
                                                                              vehicles covered by the Plan which are authorised
                                                                              only for private haulage operations.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                    3. The weight of the type B, C and D vehicles
the European Communities on 25 September 1998 by the                          authorised for public haulage operations is limited
Kingdom of Spain, represented by R. Silva de Lapuerta,                        (43 %), and, of those vehicles, slightly over half
acting as Agent, with an address for service in                               are authorised for haulage on a nation-wide scale,
Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4±6 Boulevard E.                           the remainder being authorised only for local
Servais.                                                                      haulage operations.
 ---pagebreak--- C 340/14               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.11.98
    4. The vehicles in respect of which aid has been                 25 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
        granted under the plan account for less than 0,5 %           Communities, represented by Michel Nolin and Laura
        of the total number of Spanish industrial vehicles           Pignataro, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
        and for a minuscule proportion of the total                  address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
        number of such vehicles in Europe.                           Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    5. 81 % of recipients of aid who have acquired
        vehicles having a greater tonnage (types A and E)            The Commission of the European Communities claims
        possess only one vehicle of that category, and 97 %          that the Court should:
        have less than 5 vehicles. The undertakings
        concerned are thus very small.
                                                                     Ð declare that, by failing within the prescribed periods to
                                                                          adopt or, at all events, to communicate the laws,
Ð Infringement of Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty:                      regulations and administrative measures necessary in
                                                                          order to comply with Council Directives 95/18/EC (1)
    The Kingdom of Spain maintains that there are                         and 95/19/EC (2), respectively, the licensing of railway
    reasons relating to environmental protection and road                 undertakings and the allocation of railway
    safety which justify the application in the present case              infrastructure capacity and the charging of
    of the provisions of Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty,               infrastructure fees, the French Republic has failed to
    and that the measures proposed will clearly have a                    fulfil its obligations under those directives;
    positive effect in those two areas, without any increase
    in capacity.
                                                                     Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Ð Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
    expectations:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    The time which elapsed following the submission of
    each request for information (3 periods of total silence         Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
    on the part of the Commission, respectively lasting 4            directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved,
    months, 7 months and 3 months) prompted the logical              upon the Member States to which they are addressed. The
    and legitimate conclusion that the Commission had no             Member States' obligations in that regard include the
    objection whatever to the measures laid down in the              obligation to comply with the time-limits laid down by the
    Plan Renove Industrial. Furthermore, although the                directives in question. In the present case, the time-limit
    Commission on one occasion gave notice that it might             expired on 27 June 1997, but the French Republic has
    have to adopt a provisional decision requiring the               failed to adopt or, at all events, to communicate the
    Spanish authorities to suspend payment of the aid in             requisite measures.
    issue, it never imposed any such requirement. The
    legitimate expectation referred to above gave rise to a
                                                                     (1) OJ L 143 of 27.6.1995, p. 70.
    substantial increase in the number of recipients of aid          (2) OJ L 143 of 27.6.1995, p. 75.
    under the Plan Renove Industrial.
Ð Absence of proportionality and absence of a statement
    of reasons:
    The fact that aid is declared to be prohibited by
    Article 92 is not enough to give rise simultaneously to          Action brought on 25 September 1998 by the Commission
    an obligation to repay that aid. Upon weighing in the            of the European Communities against the French Republic
    balance, on the one hand, the restoration of free                                         (Case C-354/98)
    competition, which the Commission claims to have
    been under threat, and, on the other, the whole series                                     (98/C 340/25)
    of actual losses which the recipients of aid under the
    Plan would suffer if they were obliged to repay such
    aid, it is clearly impossible to achieve any equilibrium.        An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                     the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                     25 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius, of its
                                                                     Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                     in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
Action brought on 25 September 1998 by the Commission                Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
of the European Communities against the French Republic
                        (Case C-353/98)                              The Commission of the European Communities claims
                         (98/C 340/24)                               that the Court should:
An action against the French Republic was brought before             Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       and administrative measures necessary in order to


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 January 2005 in Joined Cases T-367/02 to T-369/02: Wieland-Werke AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word marks SnTEM, SnPUR and SnMIX — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive nature — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 12 January 2005
   in Joined Cases T-367/02 to T-369/02: Wieland-Werke AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Word marks SnTEM, SnPUR and SnMIX - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive nature - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 69/26)
   Language of the case: German
   In Joined Cases T-367/02 to T-369/02: Wieland-Werke AG, established at Ulm (Germany), represented by S. Gruber and F. Graf von Stosch, lawyers, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: T.L. Eichenberg and G. Schneider) — applications for annulment of three decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 25 September 2002 (Cases R 338/2001-1, R 337/2001-1 and R 335/2001-1), concerning applications for registration of word marks SnTEM, SnPUR and SnMIX as Community trade marks — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 January 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions in their entirety;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.


C 200/56              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.7.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-58/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-25/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 200/103)                                                    (2001/C 200/105)
By order of 7 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            By order of 15 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-58/00: (reference for a preliminary          of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck): Leopold Hein v        the register of Case C-25/00: (reference for a preliminary ruling
Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter, Landesstelle Salz-       from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Venezia):
burg.                                                               Ufficio delle Entrate di Venezia 2 v Hôtel Plaza SpA.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.                                          (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-247/00 (1)
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-375/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 200/104)
By order of 7 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice                               (2001/C 200/106)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-247/00: Commission of the European           By order of 18 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
Communities v Portuguese Republic.                                  of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-375/00: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.


title: Case F-15/14: Action brought on 19 February 2014 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/40

         Action brought on 19 February 2014 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-15/14)
   2014/C 184/66
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Parliament to terminate the applicant’s employment contract at the end of the extension to his probationary period.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Parliament dated 12 April 2013 to dismiss him with effect from 15 July 2013;

               —

               Fix the compensation due to the applicant, should it be legally impossible for the European Parliament to reinstate him by appointing him as an established official, in the amount of EUR 45 000, together with default interest;

               —

               Order the Parliament to pay the whole costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-181/11 P: Appeal brought on 15 April 2011 by Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama, S.A. (Cetarsa) against the judgment delivered on 3 February 2011 in Case T-33/05, Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama, S.A. v European Commission

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/14

         Appeal brought on 15 April 2011 by Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama, S.A. (Cetarsa) against the judgment delivered on 3 February 2011 in Case T-33/05, Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama, S.A. v European Commission
   (Case C-181/11 P)
   2011/C 186/24
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama, S.A. (Cetarsa) (represented by: M. Araujo Boyd, J. Buendía Sierra and Á. Givaja Sanz, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal,

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2004) final of 20 October 2004, relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw Tobacco — Spain),

               —

               alternatively, reduce the amount of the fine imposed on it under Article 3 of the contested Decision, setting the new amount of the fine at EUR 1 000 or, alternatively, if the fine imposed should not be the same as for the producers, set the fine at EUR 2 905 200, obtained by applying the attenuating factor of 40 % to the maximum limit of 10 % of the turnover, irrespective of the subsequent reduction applicable to Cetarsa by virtue of its cooperation with the investigation as acknowledged by the General Court,

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant claims that in the judgment under appeal the General Court erred in law in relation to the legal impact of the national legal framework on the legality of the conduct of Cetarsa.
   The appellant also alleges that the General Court erred in law by distorting elements of the national legislation in force at the time of the infringement that led it, erroneously, to consider that the conduct of the processors was more harmful than that of the producers and that, by their actions, the processors went beyond what was allowed by the national legal framework.
   Finally, the appellant claims that, unlike the case of the other companies involved, the reduction granted by virtue of the uncertainty caused by the national legislation has had no impact on the calculation of the fine imposed on Cetarsa.


18.12.1999            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 366/25
       Removal from the register of Case C-211/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-121/99 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/50)                                                   (1999/C 366/53)
By order of 30 September 1999 the President of the Court of        By order of 6 October 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-211/99: Commission of the              from the register of Case C-121/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                  European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                         (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-100/98 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-227/99 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/51)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/54)
By order of 4 October 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 8 October 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-100/98: Kingdom of Sweden v            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Council of the European Union.                                     from the register of Case C-227/99: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
(1) OJ No C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-44/99 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-200/99 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/52)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/55)
By order of 4 October 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 13 October 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-44/99: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v French Republic.                            from the register of Case C-200/99: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.                                         and Northern Ireland.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.


title: Joined Cases T-427/16 to T-429/16: Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2017 – Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL WIFE and Others) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word marks AN IDEAL WIFE, AN IDEAL LOVER and AN IDEAL HUSBAND — No genuine use of the marks — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No proper reason for non-use)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2017 – Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL WIFE and Others)
   (Joined Cases T-427/16 to T-429/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word marks AN IDEAL WIFE, AN IDEAL LOVER and AN IDEAL HUSBAND - No genuine use of the marks - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No proper reason for non-use))
   (2017/C 277/62)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Isabel Martín Osete (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Danielle Rey, (Toulouse, France) (represented by: P. Wallaert and J. Cockain-Barere, lawyers)

      Re:

   Actions brought against the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2016 (Cases R 1528/2015-2, R 1527/2015-2 and R 1526/2015-2), concerning revocation proceedings between Ms Rey and Ms Martín Osete.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Ms Isabel Martín Osete to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.


C 211/16              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22.7.2000
       Removal from the register of Case C-33/98 (1)               European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                   and Northern Ireland.
                       (2000/C 211/27)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
By order of 26 January 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-33/98: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                 Removal from the register of Case C-60/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/31)
                                                                   By order of 20 March 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
       Removal from the register of Case C-386/99 (1)              from the register of Case C-60/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                   ruling from the Supreme Court of Dublin): Carmen Proetta v
                       (2000/C 211/28)                             Andrew Neil.
By order of 29 February 2000 the President of the Court of         (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-386/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-48/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/32)
                                                                   By order of 30 March 2000 the President of the Sixth Chamber
       Removal from the register of Case C-385/98 (1)              of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
                                                                   ordered the removal from the register of Case C-48/99:
                       (2000/C 211/29)                             Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of
                                                                   Luxembourg.
By order of 15 March 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has            (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-385/98:
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-287/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/33)
       Removal from the register of Case C-455/99 (1)              By order of 30 March 2000 the President of the Sixth Chamber
                                                                   of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
                       (2000/C 211/30)                             ordered the removal from the register of Case C-287/99:
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
By order of 15 March 2000 the President of the Court of            Belgium.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-455/99: Commission of the              (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.


title: Case C-205/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2016 in Case T-142/14: SolarWorld AG and Others v Council of the European Union

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/6

         Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2016 in Case T-142/14: SolarWorld AG and Others v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-205/16 P)
   (2016/C 232/07)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, Avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Brandoni solare SpA, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA, Council of the European Union, European Commission, China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;

               —

               set aside the General Court's Order in Case T-142/14;

               —

               rule on the substance and annul Article 2 of Regulation 1239/2013, or refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for annulment; and

               —

               order the Council to pay the Appellant's costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court committed an error in law in finding that Article 2 of Regulation 1239/2013 (1) is not severable from the remainder of that regulation. Changing the form of measures does not change the scope of the Regulation imposing them. The scope of countervailing measures is all imports from producers found to have engaged in injurious subsidisation, and their objective, regardless of the form, is to be adequate to remove the injury suffered by the EU producers. This scope is not changed by the annulment of Article 2.
   The Contested Order violates the Appellant's right under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as it denies the EU industry a legal remedy in trade defence cases against definitive measures which fail to respect the requirements of the Basic Regulation. In addition, the Contested Order violates the Appellant's right under Article 20 of the of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by putting exporting producers in a better position than the EU industry, as the jurisprudence recognises their right of appeal.

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China

      OJ L 325, p. 66


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 12 February 1998 in Case C-92/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 76/160/EEC - Quality of bathing water)

text:
C 94/2                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.3.98
on the interpretation of Article 25(1) of Commission                 1. annuls Commission Decision 95/204/EC of 31 May
Regulation (EEC) No 1354/83 of 17 May 1983 laying                         1995 implementing Article 20(2) of Council Directive
down general rules for the mobilisation and supply of                     89/106/EEC on construction products;
skimmed-milk powder, butter and butteroil as food aid
(OJ L 142, 1.6.1983, p. 1) Ð the Court (Second
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),                    2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and G. Hirsch,
Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,                     (1) OJ C 248, 23.9.1995.
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
29 January 1998, in which it has ruled:
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1354/83 of 17 May
1983 laying down general rules for the mobilisation and
supply of skimmed-milk powder, butter and butteroil as                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
food aid must be interpreted to the effect that in the
absence of force majeure a tenderer who has failed to                                        (Fifth Chamber)
deliver the goods concerned within the appropriate time                                   of 12 February 1998
limits must bear all the financial consequences of that
failure in accordance with the first paragraph of                    in    Case    C-92/96: Commission of the European
Article 25(1) of that Regulation, even if the tendering                          Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (1)
securities have already been declared forfeit in application         (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Directive 76/160/EEC Ð
of Article 26(6) of that Regulation, and those securities                              Quality of bathing water)
may not be deducted from the amounts due as
compensation for the damage caused by failure to deliver                                       (98/C 94/04)
the goods on the basis of the first paragraph of
Article 25(1) of the Regulation.                                                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
(1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-92/96: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agents: Richard Wainwright and Fernando
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  Castillo de la Torre) v. Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Gloria
                     of 10 February 1998                             Calvo Díaz) Ð application for a declaration that, by
                                                                     failing to take all necessary measures to ensure that the
in Case C-263/95: Federal Republic of Germany v.
                                                                     quality of inshore bathing waters in Spain conforms to the
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                     limit values set in Article 3 of Council Directive 76/160/
(Approximation of laws Ð Construction products Ð                     EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of
           Standing Committee on Construction)                       bathing water (OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1), the Kingdom of
                                                                     Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of
                         (98/C 94/03)
                                                                     that Directive and under Articles 5 and 189 of the EC
                                                                     Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.
               (Language of the case: German)                        Gulmann, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C.
                                                                     Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), P. Jann and L. Sevón,
                                                                     Judges: C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Hubeau, Principal-Administrator, for the Registrar, has
         published in the European Court Reports)                    given a judgment on 12 February 1998, in which it:
In Case C-263/95: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
                                                                     1. declares that, by failing to take all necessary measures
Ernst Röder and Bernd Kloke) v. Commission of the
                                                                          to ensure that the quality of inshore bathing waters in
European Communities (Agents: Ulrich Wölker and
                                                                          Spain conforms to the limit values set in accordance
Antonio Aresu) Ð application for annulment of
                                                                          with Article 3 of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of
Commission Decision 95/204/EC of 31 May 1995
                                                                          8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing
implementing Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/
                                                                          water, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
EEC on construction products (OJ L 129, 14.6.1995,
                                                                          obligations under Article 4 thereof;
p. 23) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez
Iglesias, President, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet, R.
Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C.             2. orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, D. A. O. Edward,
G. Hirsch, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and K. M. Ioannou,
                                                                     (1) OJ C 133, 4.5.1996.
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; L.
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 10 February 1998, in which it:


title: Case C-633/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — London Borough of Ealing v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions of supplies of services closely linked to sport — Article 133 — Exclusion of the exemption in the event of a risk of distortion of competition to the disadvantage of commercial enterprises subject to VAT — Services supplied by non-profit making organisations governed by public law)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — London Borough of Ealing v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-633/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions of supplies of services closely linked to sport - Article 133 - Exclusion of the exemption in the event of a risk of distortion of competition to the disadvantage of commercial enterprises subject to VAT - Services supplied by non-profit making organisations governed by public law))
   (2017/C 293/03)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: London Borough of Ealing

      Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The second paragraph of Article 133 of Council Directive 2006/112 of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State from providing that compliance with the condition laid down in point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 133 of that directive is a prerequisite for the grant of a VAT exemption to bodies governed by public law that supply services closely linked to sport or physical education, within the meaning of Article 132(1)(m) of that directive, even though, on the one hand, on 1 January 1989 that Member State did not apply VAT to all those supplies of services and, on the other, the supplies of services at issue were not exempted from VAT before the requirement of compliance with that condition was imposed.

               2.

               The second paragraph of Article 133 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where that legislation provides that compliance with the condition laid down in point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 133 of that directive is a prerequisite for the grant of a VAT exemption to non-profit making organisations governed by public law making supplies of services closely linked to sport or physical education, within the meaning of Article 132(1)(m) of that directive, but fails also to apply that condition to non-profit making organisations other than those governed by public law that make such supplies of services.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Case T-204/14: Action brought on 28 March 2014 — Victor International/OHIM — Ovejero Jiménez and Becerra Guibert (VICTOR)

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/14

         Action brought on 28 March 2014 — Victor International/OHIM — Ovejero Jiménez and Becerra Guibert (VICTOR)
   (Case T-204/14)
   2014/C 245/20
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Victor International GmbH (Elmshorn, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J. Plate, lawyers)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gregorio Ovejero Jiménez and María Luisa Cristina Becerra Guibert (Alicante, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 January 2014 in Case R 2208/2012-2 insofar as the opposition was upheld;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               Order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘VICTOR’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 28 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 8 4 09  963

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Gregorio Ovejero Jiménez and María Luisa Cristina Becerra Guibert

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Several national figurative marks containing the word element ‘Victoria’ for goods and services in Classes 25 and 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 in combination with Article 42(2) and (4) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22(3) and (4) of the Regulation No 2868/95; infringement of Article 15(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 5, Oviedo, by order of that Court of 1 June 1998 in the Case of Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA) v. Hostelería Asturiana, SA (HOASA) (Case C-293/98)

text:
26.9.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 299/21
directives for their implementation. In the present case,          the European Communities was brought before the Court
when the time limits expired, the Italian Republic had not         of Justice of the European Communities on 29 July 1998
adopted the measures necessary to comply with the                  by Metsä-Serla OYJ and Others, represented by Hans
Directives named in the Commission's application.                  Hellmann, Am Morsdorfer Hof 16, D-50933 Cologne,
                                                                   and Hans-Joachim Hellmann LL.M., Schilling, Zutt &
(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.                                    Anschütz, Otto-Beck Straûe 42, D-68165 Mannheim,
(2) OJ L 49, 28.2.1996, p. 29.                                     Rechtsanwälte, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                   at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue Goethe, B.P.
                                                                   1107, L-1011 Luxembourg.
                                                                   The appellants claim that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de               1. declare void, in so far as it concerns the appellants, the
Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 5, Oviedo, by order of              Commission Decision of 13 July 1994 relating to a
that Court of 1 June 1998 in the Case of Entidad de                    proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C
Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales                   33.833 Ð Cartonboard), notified to the appellants on
      (EGEDA) v. Hostelería Asturiana, SA (HOASA)                      8 August 1994 and published in the Official Journal
                       (Case C-293/98)                                 of the European Communities of 19 September 1994;
                         (98/C 299/32)
                                                                   2. order the Commission to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Juzgado de                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Primera Instancia e Instrucción (Court of First Instance)
No 5, Oviedo, of 1 June 1998, which was received at the            Infringement of Community law: there is no legal basis for
Court Registry on 29 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling           an order that the appellants should bear joint and several
in the Case of Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los               liability for the fine imposed on Finnboard. Article 15(2)
Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA) v. Hostelería                    of Council Regulation No 17 does not impose liability for
Asturiana, SA (HOASA), on the following question.                  infringements of third parties. Neither the Commission
                                                                   nor the Court of First Instance found that the appellants
Must Article 1(2)(a) and (3) of Directive 93/83/EEC (1) be         had themselves infringed Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty.
interpreted as meaning that the reception by a hotel               The Court's view that an undertaking may be held jointly
establishment of satellite or terrestrial television signals       and severally liable for payment of a fine where the
and their retransmission by cable to the various rooms of          Commission finds in the same instrument that the
the hotel is an act of communication to the public' or            infringement could have been established also in the case
reception by the public'?                                         of that undertaking infringes the principle of nulla poena
                                                                   sine lege, or the prohibition which follows by analogy
                                                                   from that principle, and the principle of the presumption
(1) OJ L 248, 6.10.1993, p. 15.                                    of innocence; it is incompatible with the principles of the
                                                                   rule of law and contravenes the appellants' fundamental
                                                                   rights of defence.
                                                                   The Court of First Instance wrongly relies on the case-law
                                                                   of the Court of Justice on the determination of fines in
Appeal brought on 29 July 1998 by Metsä-Serla OYJ,                 regard to undertakings which form an economic unit.
UPM-Kymmene OYJ (formerly United Paper Mills Ltd),                 Joint and several liability cannot be derived from the
Tamrock OY (formerly Tampella Corporation) and Kyro                principles of economic unity. Moreover, the preconditions
OYJ ABP (formerly OY Kyro AB) against the judgment                 for a finding that there was economic unity do not exist.
delivered on 14 May 1998 by the Third Chamber
(extended composition) of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-339/94,
T-340/94, T-341/94 and T-342/94 Metsä-Serla OYJ and
Others against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                      (Case C-294/98 P)                            Action brought on 29 July 1998 by the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities against the French Republic
                         (98/C 299/33)
                                                                                (Case C-296/98)
                                                                                (98/C 299/34)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May
1998 by the Third Chamber (extended composition) of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in             An action against the French Republic was brought before
Joined Cases T-339/94, T-340/94, T-341/94 and T-342/94             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Metsä-Serla OYJ and Others against the Commission of               29 July 1998 by the Commission of the European


title: Case F-125/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 February 2016 — Sesma Merino v OHIM

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/45

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 February 2016 — Sesma Merino v OHIM
   (Case F-125/13) (1)

   (2016/C 111/57)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 28/4/2014, p. 37.


title: Action brought on 7 July 1997 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-245/97)

text:
27 . 9 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 295/9
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                           — of DM 608 503,40 for 'expenditure in promoting
                        (Third Chamber)                                              the sale of milk ', and
                         of 14 July 1997                                       — of DM 485 466,68 by reason of ' failure to comply
in Case C-3 88/96 : Glasoltherm Sari v. Commission of the                            with payment deadlines',
European Communities, Electricite de France and HLM
                   'Colomiers Habitat' SA (')                                  are not to be paid by the EAGGF but are charged to
           (Formal inadmissibility of the application)                         the Federal Republic of Germany,
                            ( 97/C 295/ 14 )
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
                                                                               proceedings .
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                     — ( Expenditure in promoting the sale of milk )
In Case C-388/96 : Glasoltherm Sari, in liquidation, having                    The charging of the item cited in the application,
                                                                               which arose from two contracts which the former
its seat for the purposes of the liquidation at Orsay,
France v. Commission of the European Communities,                              Federal Office for the Organization of the Agricultural
Electricite de France, having its seat in Paris, and HLM                       Markets ( BALM ) had concluded on behalf of the
' Colomiers Habitat' SA, having its seat at Colomiers,                         Commission in promoting the sale of milk and milk
France — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J. C.                         products within the framework of Regulations ( EEC )
Moitinho de Almeida, President of Chamber, C. Gulmann                          No 465/92 ( ] ) and ( EEC ) No 585/93 ( 2 ), is justified by
 ( Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; G. Cosmas,                        the Commission on the ground of failure to comply
Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order                      with a requirement concerning the content of the
on 14 July 1997, the operative part of which is at follows :                   interim reports of the successful tenderer for which no
                                                                               provision existed in the relevant Community law.
                                                                               According to the standard contracts provided for at
 The action is inadmissible.                                                   that time under the above regulations, final reports
                                                                               were required to contain cost-benefit analyses,
 n OJ C 40, 8 . 2 . 1997.                                                      whereas interim reports were not so required. It was
                                                                                only for subsequent programmes and measures — thus
                                                                                for the continuation of advertising measures
                                                                                subsequent to Regulations ( EEC ) No 465/92 and
                                                                                ( EEC ) No 585/93 — that the new sample contracts
                                                                                contained corresponding clauses .
 Action brought on 7 July 1997 by the Federal Republic                  — ( Failure to comply with payment deadlines in respect
 of Germany against the Commission of the European                              of aid for set-aside )
                              Communities
                          ( Case C-245/97 )
                                                                                The provision in Article 15 ( 2 ) of Regulation (EEC )
                             ( 97/C 295/15 )                                    No 2069/91 ( 3 ), under which the amount of aid had to
                                                                                be paid by 31 December 1992 at the latest, was
                                                                                complied with. There is no basis in law for excluding
 An action against the Commission of the European                               the portion of that amount payable by the Community
  Communities was brought before the Court of Justice                           from clearance of the accounts on the ground that it
  of the European Communities on 7 July 1997 by the                             was not until May 1993 that this portion was claimed
  Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst                             from the Community by way of Table 104 . The
  Roder, Ministerialrat, and Claus-Dieter Quassowski ,                          Commission's working document of 4 January 1993
  Regierungsdirektor, Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs,                      ( Document VI/488/92 DE ) governs solely the graded
  D-53107 Bonn .                                                                rejection of amounts which were not paid to end
                                                                                recipients within the periods laid down by Community
                                                                                law. It does not provide for any sanctions in the case
  The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    of late notification to the Community of amounts
                                                                                which end recipients did receive within the specified
  — set aside the Commission decision of 23 April 1997 —                        periods .
      C(97 ) 1180 final — on the clearance of the accounts
      presented by the Member States in respect of the                   ( 1 ) OJ L 53 , 28 . 2 . 1992, p. 8 .
      expenditure for 1993 on the Guarantee Section of the               ( 2 ) OJ L 61 , 13 . 3 . 1993 , p . 26 .
      European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                  ( 3 ) OJ L 191 , 16 . 7. 1991 , p . 19 .
      ( EAGGF ) in so far as Article 2 thereof provides that
      the amounts :


C 169/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.7.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          43/EEC were fulfilled. However, that possibility was not in any
                                                                         way taken into account by the competent authority.
In the context of the procedure for the approval of the planned
extension to the golf course in the municipality of Wörschach            (1) OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1.
im Ennstal, the Styrian authority responsible for nature                 (2) OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.
protection carried out an appraisal of the compatibility of that
project with the conservation objectives laid down for that
area. In the Commission’s view, the expert’s report carried out
by the Institute may be regarded as an assessment of the
implications for the site within the meaning of Article 6(3) of
Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural                      Removal from the register of Case C-479/01 (1)
habitats and of wild fauna and flora. The project in question
gave rise to a potentially grave risk to the only instance, within                                (2002/C 169/49)
the inner Alpine region, of the breeding of the corncrake, a
species of bird threatened with extinction worldwide, within
the special protection area located in the Ennstal in accordance
                                                                         By order of 17 April 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
with Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the
                                                                         of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
conservation of wild birds. On the basis of the results of the
                                                                         register of Case C-479/01: Commission of the European
assessment made of the implications for the site, the project
                                                                         Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
should not have been approved pursuant to Article 6(3) of
Directive 92/43/EEC. Thus, it was capable of being approved
only if the criteria laid down by Article 6(4) of Directive 92/          (1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.


title: Case T-397/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of  10 January 2006  — ArchiMEDES v Commission (Interim proceedings — Application for interim measures — Arbitration clause — Urgency — Absence)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/29

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 10 January 2006 — ArchiMEDES v Commission
   (Case T-397/05 R)
   (Interim proceedings - Application for interim measures - Arbitration clause - Urgency - Absence)
   (2006/C 86/59)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Architecture, microclimat, energies douces — Europe et Sud (ArchiMEDES) SARL (Ganges, France) (represented by: P.-P. Van Gehuchten, J. Sambon and P. Reyniers, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Kańska and E. Manhaeve, Agents)
   Application for
   Suspension of the operation, firstly, of the Commission's decision contained in its letter of 5 October 2005 to offset debts to the detriment of the applicant; secondly, of the Commission's decision contained in its letter of 30 August 2005 and, thirdly, of the debit note of 23 August 2005, No 3240705638
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed;

               2.

               Costs are reserved.