title: Case T-77/06: Action brought on  1 March 2006  — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/32

         Action brought on 1 March 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-77/06)
   (2006/C 96/51)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: Paolo Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the European Commission's Memorandum No 14 012 of 19 December 2005 concerning the POR Sicilia Programme (claim for payment No 2005 3489) containing a request to ‘comply with the conditions set out in Commissioner Barnier's letter of 29 July 2003 as to the eligibility of the payments on account made in the context of aid schemes’;

               —

               annul the European Commission's Memorandum No 14 134 of 21 December 2005 concerning the POR Sicilia Programme (claim for payment SYSFIN 2005 3554) containing a request to ‘comply with the conditions set out in Commissioner Barnier's letter of 29 July 2003 as to the eligibility of the payments on account made in the context of aid schemes’;

               —

               annul the European Commission's Memorandum No 765 of 25 January 2006 concerning the programme entitled ‘PON Ricerca scientifica, sviluppo tecnologico e alta formazione’ (Scientific Research, Technological Development and Higher Education) (claim for payment No 20 053 784) containing a request to ‘comply with the conditions set out in Commissioner Barnier's letter of 29 July 2003 as to the eligibility of the payments on account made in the context of aid schemes’;

               —

               annul the European Commission's Memorandum No 1 459 of 13 February 2006 concerning the POR Sicilia Programme (claim for payment SYSFIN 2006 0029) containing a request to ‘comply with the conditions set out in Commissioner Barnier's letter of 29 July 2003 as to the eligibility of the payments on account made in the context of aid schemes’;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are those invoked in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004, p. 55.


title: Case T-318/13: Action brought on 13 June 2013 — Vita Phone v OHIM (LIFEDATA)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/25

         Action brought on 13 June 2013 — Vita Phone v OHIM (LIFEDATA)
   (Case T-318/13)
   (2013/C 226/34)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Vita Phone GmbH (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by P. Ruess and A. Doepner-Thiele, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 March 2013 in Case R 1072/2012-1;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘LIFEDATA’ for goods and services in Classes 10 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 10 525 053

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

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

               —

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


title: Case T-813/16: Action brought on 21 November 2016 — Abes v Commission

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/50

         Action brought on 21 November 2016 — Abes v Commission
   (Case T-813/16)
   (2017/C 030/58)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Abes — companhia de assistência, bem-estar e serviços para seniores, Lda (São Pedro de Tomar, Portugal) (represented by: N. Mimoso Ruiz, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Consider its action for annulment to have been brought in due form and to be admissible, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU and for the purposes of Article 264 TFEU.

               —

               Annul Decision C(2016) 5054 of 9 August 2016, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, in so far as it considers that the measure described in the complaint does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

               —

               Annul Decision C(2016) 5054 of 9 August 2016, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, in so far as it considers that, even if the measure described in the complaint does constitute State aid, it is compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons. The applicant considers that the decision is vitiated by a failure to state reasons because in that decision it states that even if the measure constituted aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, it would be compatible with the internal market in accordance with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, although no reasons are given for that conclusion.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment. The applicant considers that the decision is vitiated by an error of assessment as regards the effects of the aid measure on competition and on trade between Member States since the reasons which lead the Commission to assert that the effect of the aid measure in question on trade between Member States is purely hypothetical or presumed and that, if such an effect actually exists, it is only marginal, are not robust and in practice guarantee the proliferation of similar ad hoc aid measures, not only in the Tomar region but throughout the country, with the inherent consequences in terms of deterring national investment and investment from other Member States.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in so far as the Commission (i) failed to examine with the necessary care and objectivity whether the aid in question was liable to affect trade between Member States; (ii) did not take account of the fact that there is no threshold or percentage below which it can be considered a priori that trade between Member States is not affected; (iii) did not take account of the fact that the effect on trade between Member States does not depend on the local or regional nature of the services provided or the importance of the area of activity concerned; (iv) did not sufficiently emphasise that where State aid strengthens an undertaking’s position vis-à-vis other competing undertakings, it should be considered that the undertakings competing with the recipient undertaking will enjoy less favourable conditions for financing new investments in the State concerned.


title: Case T-481/07: Order of the General Court of 9 December 2009 — Deltalinqs and SVZ v Commission (State aid — System of aid granted by the Belgian authorities in support of inter-modal transport by inland waterways — Decision of the Commission not to object — Action for annulment brought by associations representing the interests of undertakings established in the port area of Rotterdam — Absence of any significant effect on a competitive position — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/37

         Order of the General Court of 9 December 2009 — Deltalinqs and SVZ v Commission
   (Case T-481/07) (1)

   (State aid - System of aid granted by the Belgian authorities in support of inter-modal transport by inland waterways - Decision of the Commission not to object - Action for annulment brought by associations representing the interests of undertakings established in the port area of Rotterdam - Absence of any significant effect on a competitive position - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2010/C 37/50
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Deltalinqs (Rotterdam, Netherlands) and SVZ, Havenondernemersvereninging Rotterdam (Rotterdam) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: Vlaams Gewest (Brussels, Belgium) and Waterwegen en Zeekanaal NV (Willebroek, Belgium) (represented by: Y. van Gerven, lawyer)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision C (2007) 1939 final of 10 May 2007 not to object, following the preliminary examination procedure laid down in Article 88(3) EC, to the system of aid envisaged by the Vlaams Gewest (Flemish Region, Belgium) in support of inter-modal transport via inland waterways (State aid N 682/2006 — Belgium)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Deltaqings and SVZ, Havenondernemersvereninging Rotterdam shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the Commission.

               3.

               Vlaams Gewest and Waterwegen en Zeekanaal NV shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case C-407/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 27 July 2015 — Ovidiu Rîpanu v Compania Națională ‘Loteria Română’ S.A.

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 27 July 2015 — Ovidiu Rîpanu v Compania Națională ‘Loteria Română’ S.A.
   (Case C-407/15)
   (2016/C 200/07)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Bacău (România)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ovidiu Rîpanu

      Defendant: Compania Națională ‘Loteria Română’ S.A.
   By order of 18 February 2016, the Court (Tenth Chamber) declared that it clearly lacked jurisdiction to reply to the question submitted.


title: Case F-142/11 DEP: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 December 2014  — Erik Simpson v Council (Civil service — Procedure — Taxation of costs)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/45

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 December 2014 — Erik Simpson v Council
   (Case F-142/11 DEP) (1)

   ((Civil service - Procedure - Taxation of costs))
   (2015/C 026/58)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Erik Simpson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A.F. Jensen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Civil service — Application for annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 9 after he had passed Open Competition EPSO/AD/113/07 ‘Heads of Unit (AD 9) in the field of translation who have Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak and Slovene as their main language’ and an application for compensation.

      Operative part of the order

   The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by the Council of the European Union to Mr Simpson by way of recoverable costs in Case F-142/11 is fixed in the amount of EUR 8  600, to be increased by any value added tax due on that amount.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 26.


title: Case T-430/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO (BRENT INDEX)

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/16

         Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO (BRENT INDEX)
   (Case T-430/16)
   (2016/C 371/18)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: P. Heusler, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘BRENT INDEX’ — Application for registration No 14 284 947

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2016 in Case R 8/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay de costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Appeal brought on 24 September 1998 by Laboratories Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and Jean-Jacques Goupil against the judgment delivered on 16 July 1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-199/96 between Laboratories Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and Jean-Jacques Goupil and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-352/98 P)

text:
21.11.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 358/7
Correia Ferreira, his spouse, against Companhia de                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko
Seguros Mundial ConfiancËa S.A. on the following                   Protodikio, Piraeus (Fourth Chamber (Three Judges)), by
questions:                                                         judgment of that court of 29 May 1998 in the case of
                                                                           Henkel Hellas ABEE against the Greek State
1. Does Article 3 of Council Directive 84/5/EEC (1)                                       (Case C-350/98)
    require compulsory insurance against civil liability in
    respect of the use of motor vehicles to cover injury                                   (98/C 358/15)
    caused to the members of the family of the insured
    person or of the driver of the vehicle even where those
    persons are carried free of charge or where only strict
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    civil liability, without negligence, arises, or may the
                                                                   European Communities by judgment of the Diikitiko
    Member State exclude the award of any compensation
                                                                   Protodikio (Administrative Court of First Instance),
    in such cases?
                                                                   Piraeus (Fourth Chamber (Three Judges)), of 29 May
                                                                   1998, received at the Court Registry on 24 September
2. Are the minimum capital sums insured laid down in               1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Henkel
    Article 1(2) of Directive 84/5/EEC also applicable to          Hellas ABEE against the Greek State on the following
    situations where strict civil liability, without               questions:
    negligence, arises or may the Member State legislate to
    the effect that, where there is no negligence on the
    part of the driver of the vehicle causing the accident,
                                                                   1. Is the duty charged by the Greek state pursuant to
    the maximum limits of the compensation payable are
                                                                       Article 42(6) of Law 2065/1992 equivalent to the
    to be lower than those limits?
                                                                       capital duty laid down by Article 4 of Council
                                                                       Directive 66/335/EEC (1) as subsequently amended,
3. Must the national court interpret its domestic law so               taking into account that on 1 July 1984 no such
    as to render it compatible with the provisions of a                capital duty existed in Greece?
    directive where the directive has been defectively
    transposed or where pre-existing provisons of
    domestic law remain in force?                                  2. If so, taking account of Greece's special fiscal
                                                                       situation, may the rate of that duty exceed the rate of
4. Is that the case even where that interpretation is                  1 % in the abovementioned directive?
    contrary to the construction generally put on the
    meaning and scope of the provisions of its domestic            (1) OJ L 249, 3.10.1969, p. 25.
    law, or even where that interpretation is consonant
    with the intentions of the national legislature, which
    has nevertheless not succeeded in expressing them in
    the text of the law?
5. And must the national court adopt that interpretation
    conforming to the provisions of the Community
                                                                   Appeal brought on 24 September 1998 by Laboratories
    directive even in a dispute involving only private
                                                                   Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and Jean-Jacques Goupil
    persons?
                                                                   against the judgment delivered on 16 July 1998 by the
                                                                   Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
6. Must the national court adopt an interpretation of its          European Communities in Case T-199/96 between
    domestic law conforming to the provisions of Article 1         Laboratories Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and Jean-
    of Council Directive 90/232/EEC (2) even in the case of        Jacques Goupil and the Commission of the European
    an accident which occurred before the end of the                                        Communities
    period allowed for the Member State to transpose that
                                                                                (Case C-352/98 P)
    provision into its domestic law?
                                                                                (98/C 358/16)
7. If it should be concluded that it is not possible to
    interpret domestic law so as to render it consonant
    with the provisions of a directive, does the primacy of
                                                                   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 July 1998
    Community law mean that the national court must
                                                                   by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
    exclude the application of domestic provisions which
                                                                   European Communities in Case T-199/96 between
    are incompatible with the directive, even in the case of
                                                                   Laboratories Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and Jean-
    a dispute involving only private persons?
                                                                   Jacques Goupil and the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
(1) OJ L 8, 11.1.1984, p. 17.                                      the European Communities on 24 September 1998 by
(2) OJ L 129, 19.5.1990, p. 33.                                    Laboratories Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and Jean-
                                                                   Jacques Goupil, represented by Jean-Pierre Spitzer and
                                                                   Yves-Marie Moray, of the Paris Bar.
 ---pagebreak--- C 358/8              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.11.98
The appellants claim that the Court should:                                    the Court of First Instance maintains, in the
                                                                               absence of any opinion Ð pursuant to Article 10
                                                                               of the Cosmetics Directive';
Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
    16 July 1998 (1);
                                                                           Ð the Commission should have given Mr Goupil and
                                                                               the numerous international scientists who have
Ð uphold in their entirety the appellants' claims that the                     continually demonstrated that Bergasol is both
    Court should:                                                              harmless and efficacious an opportunity to make
                                                                               an extensive and genuine contribution to its
    Ð rule that the action is admissible and well founded;                     research.
    Ð order the Commission to pay Laboratories
        Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and Jean-Jacques                      Exclusion from the market is disproportionate to the
        Goupil, personally, FF 152 867 090 and FF                          risks normally inherent in the economic activity at
        161 309 995.33, respectively, by way of damages                    issue, especially as it is by no means justified in terms
        together with interest;                                            of public health.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998, p. 32.
Ð order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs.                 (2) OJ L 167, 18.7.1995, p. 19.
                                                                      (3) Council Directive 76/768/EEC (OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 169).
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð Breach of Community law in that the Court of First
    Instance held the relevant provision of 18th
    Commission Directive 95/34/EC of 10 July 1995
    adapting to technical progress Annexes II, III, VI and            Action brought on 29 September 1998 by the Commission
    VII to Council Directive 76/768/EEC (2) (hereinafter              of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
    the Adapting Directive') to be a normative measure:                                           Belgium
    since Mr Goupil is the sole holder of a patent for the
                                                                                (Case C-355/98)
    use in sun lotion of natural essence of citrus fruits
    containing 5-MOP, Bergaderm SA is individually and                                         (98/C 358/17)
    directly concerned by the measure at issue because it is
    the only person to be affected by it.
                                                                      An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
Ð Manifest error of assessment made by the Court of                   before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
    First Instance with regard to the fault committed by              on 29 September 1998 by the Commission of the
    the Commission: contrary to the statement made in                 European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of
    the relevant provision of the Adapting Directive, it              its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
    was perfectly possible Ð on the basis of all the                  service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
    scientific studies available on Bergasol as a finished            Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    product Ð logically to conclude that Bergasol is both
    harmless and efficacious. The approach adopted by
    the Commission, which deliberately disregarded the                The Commission claims that the Court should:
    principle of audi alteram partem, played into the
    hands of Bergaderm's commercial competitors.
                                                                      1. Declare that, by adopting, within the framework of
                                                                           the Law of 10 April 1990 on security firms, security
(By way of subsidiary pleas)                                               systems firms and internal security services, provisions
                                                                           which:
Ð Breach of Community law in that the Court of First
    Instance did not find any breach of a higher-ranking                   (a) make it necessary to obtain prior authorisation in
    rule of law for the protection of individuals. In the                       order to operate an undertaking of any of the
    context of the Cosmetics Directive' (3), the                               kinds referred to in the said Law, that
    Commission has no discretion, because it must follow                        authorisation being subject to a certain number of
    a strict procedure involving consultation and approval,                     conditions, namely that:
    and if it in any way fails to have proper regard for
    that procedure or commits any error in connection                           Ð a security firm must have a place of business
    therewith, it incurs liability. Specifically, in the present                    in Belgium;
    case:
                                                                                Ð persons who
    Ð the Commission should have approached the                                     Ð have charge of the actual management of
        Council after the Adaptation Committee delivered                                 a security firm or internal security service,
        an unfavourable opinion on 1 June 1992 Ð or, as                                  or who


title: Case T-384/05: Action brought on  19 October 2005  — I.R.I.P.A. Abruzzo v Commission

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/23

         Action brought on 19 October 2005 — I.R.I.P.A. Abruzzo v Commission
   (Case T-384/05)
   (2005/C 330/58)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Istituto Regionale per gli Interventi Promozionali in Agricoltura (Regional Institute for the Promotion of Agriculture) — I.R.I.P.A. Abruzzo (Pescara, Italy) (represented by: Gianluca Belotti, Nicola Pisani and Emanuele Dell' Elce, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision set out in its letter of 9 August 2005 and, insofar as necessary, the decision in the Commission's letter of 12 August 2005, and declare that the Commission should award the applicant the grant in issue on the basis that it meets all of the other award criteria;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This action is brought against the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 9 August 2005, received by the applicant on 12 August 2005, informing the applicant that its application for financial assistance under Regulation (EC) No 814/2000 from appropriations in the 2005 budget was not selected on the ground that it was alleged to lack financial capacity.
   Contrary to the reasons put forward by the Commission in support of its refusal to grant the application for funding, the applicant submits that its financial capacity and that of its partners in the initiative far exceeded that required by the call for proposals, even on a strict interpretation of the liquidity criterion laid down by the Commission.
   Moreover, the applicant submits that this liquidity criterion, as interpreted by the Commission, is clearly illogical and out of proportion to the intended objectives, and thus artificially limits the number of prospective candidates. In this regard, the applicant maintains that the condition of financial capacity was fully met in that its liquidity far exceeded 100 % of the total grant applied for (EUR 263 895,50 ) and that, during each of the three financial years for which the balance sheets and annual accounts were approved and closed, the applicant's liquidity and that of its partners clearly exceeded this figure.


title: Case T-642/14: Action brought on 29 August 2014 — JP Divver Holding Company v OHIM (EQUIPMENT FOR LIFE)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/29

         Action brought on 29 August 2014 — JP Divver Holding Company v OHIM (EQUIPMENT FOR LIFE)
   (Case T-642/14)
   (2014/C 431/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: JP Divver Holding Company Ltd (Newry, Ireland) (represented by: A. Franke, E. Bertram, lawyers)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘EQUIPMENT FOR LIFE’

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2014 in Case R 64/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-583/13: Order of the General Court of 3 September 2014 — Shire Pharmaceutical Contracts v Commission (Action for annulment — Medicinal products for paediatric use — Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 — Article 37 — Extension of the period of market exclusivity of off-patent orphan medicinal products — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/23

         Order of the General Court of 3 September 2014 — Shire Pharmaceutical Contracts v Commission
   (Case T-583/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Medicinal products for paediatric use - Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 - Article 37 - Extension of the period of market exclusivity of off-patent orphan medicinal products - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility))
   (2014/C 431/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Shire Pharmaceutical Contracts Ltd (Hampshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Utges Manley and M. Vickers, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and V. Walsh, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of the decision purportedly contained in the letter which the Commission sent to the applicant on 2 September 2013, as subsequently confirmed by the letter of 18 October 2013, concerning whether the medicinal product Xagrid was eligible for the reward provided for in Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (OJ 2006 L 378, p. 1)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Shire Pharmaceutical Contracts Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.


title: Case C-302/15: Order of the President of the Court of 9 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Tarragona — Spain) — Correos y Telégrafos SA v Ayuntamiento de Vila Seca

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/15

         Order of the President of the Court of 9 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Tarragona — Spain) — Correos y Telégrafos SA v Ayuntamiento de Vila Seca
   (Case C-302/15) (1)

   (2016/C 200/22)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Morlaix by judgment of that court of 14 December 1994 in the case of E.A.R.L. de Kerlast v. 1. Union Régionale de Coopératives Agricoles (UNICOPA) and 2. Coopérative du Trieux (Case C-15/95)

text:
No C 54/12           ΓΕΝ                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4 . 3 . 95
down in Article 15 of the Directive with regard to alcoholic                — Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May 1992 ( l )
beverages of less than 10 degrees strength.                                     introducing Community measures for the control of
                                                                                avian influenza, and
(!) OJ No L 298 , 7. 10. 1989, p. 23 .
                                                                            — Council Directive 92/48/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying
                                                                                down the minimum hygiene rules applicable to
                                                                                fishery products caught on board certain vessels in
                                                                                accordance with Article 3 ( 1 ) (a ) (i ) of Directive
                                                                                91/493/EEC (2),
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht
Bonn by order of that court of 30 November 1994 in the                      and/or failing to communicate them to the Commission,
case of Ayse Siizen v. Zehnacker Gebaudereinigung GmbH                      the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
      Krankenhausservice, joined party: Lefarth GmbH                        obligations under the penultimate articles of the said
                            Case C-13/95 )                                  directives and under the EC Treaty;
                             ( 95/C 54/19 )
                                                                       2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Arbeitsgericht                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Bonn (Bonn Labour Court) of 30 November 1994, which
was received at the Court Registry on 1 8 January 1 995, for a         The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
preliminary ruling in the case of Ayse Siizen v. Zehnacker             paragraph of Article 189 and of the first paragraph of
Gebaudereinigung GmbH Krankenhausservice, joined                       Article 5 of the EEC Treaty is such as to oblige Member
party: Lefarth GmbH, on the following questions:                       States to whom directives are addressed to adopt the
                                                                       measures necessary for the implementation of such
1 . On the basis of the judgments of the Court of Justice of           directives within the time-limit prescribed therein. The
     14 April 1994 in Case C-392/92 ( J ) and 19 May 1992 in           time-limit in question expired on 1 January 1993 but the
     CaseC-29/91 (2), is Directive 77/1 87/EEC ( 3 ) applicable        Kingdom of Belgium has not adopted the necessary
                                                                       measures .
     if an undertaking terminates a contract with an outside
     undertaking in order then to transfer it to another
     outside undertaking?                                              (!) OJ No L 167, 22 . 6.1992, p. 1 .
                                                                       (2 ) OJ No L 187, 7. 7. 1992, p. 41 .
2. Is there a legal transfer within the meaning of the
     directive in the case of the operation described in
     Question 1 even if no tangible or intangible business
     assets are retransferred ?
(M OJ No C 132, 5 . 3 . 1977, p. 4.                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
(2 ) OJ No C 153 , 14 . 5 . 1994, p. 4 .                               Grande Instance de Morlaix by judgment of that court of
(3 ) OJ No L 61 , 18 . 6 . 1992, p. 26 .                               14 December 1994 in the case of E.A.R.L. de Kerlast v. 1 .
                                                                       Union Regionale de Cooperatives Agricoles (UNICOPA)
                                                                                and 2. Cooperative du Trieux
                                                                                (Case C-15/95 )
                                                                                95/C 54/21
Action brought on 17 January 1995 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                Belgium                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
                           (Case C-14/95 )                             Grande Instance (Regional Court), Morlaix, of
                            ( 95/C 54/20 )                             14 December 1994, which was received at the Court
                                                                       Registry on 18 January 1995, for a preliminary ruling in the
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                   case of E.A.R.L. de Kerlast against 1 . Union Regionale de
before the Court ofJustice of the European Communities on              Cooperatives Agricoles (UNICOPA) and 2. Cooperative du
17 January 1995 by the Commission of the European                      Trieux on the following questions:
Communities, represented by Gerard Rozet, Legal Adviser,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg             1 . On a proper construction of Article 7 of Council
at the office of Georgios Kremlis, of the Legal Service,                    Regulation ( EEC) No 857/84 (*) are producers
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                   precluded from entering into joint ventures — which are
                                                                            without legal personality of their own, are not effective
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 against third parties and are unpublicized — in so far as
                                                                            they constitute a disguised form of quota-leasing, or are
1 . declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and                 such ventures authorized as a necessary structural
     administrative provisions necessary in order to comply                 adjustment within the meaning of Article 1 of Council
     with                                                                   Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (2)?
 ---pagebreak--- 4 . 3 . 95            I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 54/13
2. Must Article 12 (c ) and Article 3a of Regulation (EEC )            fiscal administration, since requests for refunds are usually
     No 857/84 be interpreted as requiring resumption of               revised and transmitted with, according to the complaints
     production by the actual person concerned ?                       received, delays of up to 12 months.
3 . Does Article 40 ( 3 ) of the EEC Treaty preclude a                 The Commission considers that the Spanish authorities'
     decision by a Member State, pursuant to Regulation                lack of cooperation, in not responding to its written
     No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 as amended by Regulation               requests, is by reason of the significant repercussions it has
     ( EEC ) No 764/89 ( 3 ) of 20 March 1989 , prohibiting            in this matter an infringement of Article 5 of the EC
     joint ventures and authorizing joint agricultural                 Treaty.
     holdings partly devoted to dairy farming ?
H OJ No L 90, 1 . 4 . 1984, p . 13 .
(2 ) OJ No L 90, 1 . 4 . 1984, p . 10 .
(3 ) OJ No L 84, 29 . 3 . 1989, p . 2 .                                Action brought on 18 January 1995 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-17/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 54/23
                                                                       An Action against the French Republic was brought before
Action brought on 18 January 1995 by the Commission of                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                        18 January 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                 Spain                                 Communities, represented by Gerard Rozet, Legal Adviser,
                          ( Case C-16/95 )                             acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                       at the office of Georgios Kremlis, of the Legal Service,
                            ( 95/C 54/22 )                             Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before              The applicant claims that the Court should:
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
18 January 1995 by the Commission of the European                      1 . declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
Communities, represented by Blanca Rodriguez Galindo                        administrative provisions necessary in order to comply
and Enrico Traversa, both of the Legal Service, acting as                   with
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
office of Georgios Kremlis, a member of the Legal Service of                — Council Directive 91/67/EEC of 28 January 1991
the Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                        concerning the animal health conditions governing
                                                                                the placing on the market of aquaculture animals
                                                                                and products (*),
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            — Council Directive 91 /628/EEC of 19 November
1 . declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its                   1991 on the protection of animals during transport
     obligations under the Treaty:                                               and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and
                                                                                91/496/EEC ( 2), and
     (a ) in not respecting the time-limit of six months for the
           refund of value added tax to taxable persons not                 — Council Directive 92/35/EEC of 29 April 1993
           established in the territory of the country contrary                  laying down control rules and measures to combat
           to Article 7 (4) of the Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC                  African horse sickness ( 3 ),
           of 6 December 1979 on the arrangements for the
           refund of value added tax to taxable persons not                 and/or by failing to communicate them to the
           established in the territory of the country;                      Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                            obligations under the penultimate articles of the said
                                                                             directives and under the EC Treaty;
     ( b) in infringing the duty of cooperation of the Member
           States laid down in Article 5 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                       2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
2. Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                                                                       Case C- 14/95 (4); the time-limits for transposition expired
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        on 1 January 1993 .
Notwithstanding the existence of Spanish legislation which             (!)  OJ No L 46, 19 . 2 . 1991 , p . 1 .
is in principle in accordance with the Eighth Directive, the           (2 ) OJ No L 340, 11 . 12. 1991 , p. 17.
Commission considers that it has been shown that the                   (3)  OJ No L 157, 10. 6 . 1992, p . 19 .
time-limit of six months for the refund of VAT to taxable              (4 ) See this edition of the OJ, p . 12 .
persons not established in the territory of the country is not
always respected by the relevant department of the Spanish


title: Case T-568/17: Action brought on 18 August 2017 — Korea National Insurance Corporation v Council and Commission

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/19

         Action brought on 18 August 2017 — Korea National Insurance Corporation v Council and Commission
   (Case T-568/17)
   (2017/C 338/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Korea National Insurance Corporation (Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Lester and S. Midwinter, QC, T. Brentnall and A. Stevenson, Solicitors)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/993 of 12 June 2017 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 149, p. 67) , Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/994 of 12 June 2017 amending Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 149, p. 75), Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1459 of 10 August 2017 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 208, p. 38), and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1457 of 10 August 2017 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 208, p. 33), insofar as those acts include the applicant in the list of entities subject to restrictive measures.

               —

               order the defendants to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendants have failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendants have manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the applicant’s case; there is no factual basis for its inclusion.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendants failed to give the applicant the evidence purportedly in support of their decision to relist the applicant before it was relisted, or in support of the EU implementation of its UN listing, in breach of the applicant’s rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have failed to discharge their obligations when deciding to list the applicant following its UN designation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have misused their powers by attempting to render ineffective and thereby evade the applicant’s right to an effective remedy in relation to its listing pursuant to Article 230 TFEU and/or they have breached the applicant’s right to equal treatment.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have breached data protection law.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the defendants have infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business, and reputation.


title: Case T-53/02: Action brought on 22 February 2002 by Ricosmos B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
18.5.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 118/27
Action brought on 13 February 2002 by S.A. Global                       —     There is no proof of any payment having been made in
Electronic Finance Management against the Commission                          error by the Commission.
                of the European Communities
                                                                        —     The Commission communicated for the first time its
                         (Case T-29/02)                                       change of position in respect of acceptance of the project
                                                                              costs only six months after the completion of the project,
                                                                              and three months after the Final Review Report. By so
                        (2002/C 118/43)                                       doing, the defendant did not communicate its objections
                                                                              within a reasonable time.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        —     The Commission has not complied with the general
                                                                              principles of protection of legitimate expectations, of due
                                                                              process and of execution of a contract ‘in good faith’.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 February 2002 by S.A. Global
Electronic Finance Management, represented by Mr Matthias
E. Storme and Ms Ann Gobien of Keuleneer, Storme, Vanneste,
Van Varenbergh, Verhelst, Brussels (Belgium).
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Action brought on 22 February 2002 by Ricosmos B.V.
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
—     declare the application admissible and well-founded;
                                                                                (Case T-53/02)
—     order the Commission to pay to the applicant the
      equivalent in Euro of the sum of 40 693 ECU;
                                                                                (2002/C 118/44)
—     declare the Commission’s attempt to recover from the
      applicant the sum of 273 516 ECU unfounded and                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
      therefore order the Commission to issue a ‘credit note’
      for the amount of 273 516 ECU;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 22 February 2002 by Ricosmos
                                                                        B.V., established at Delfzijl (Netherlands), represented by
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Martijn Hendrik Fleers, Michel Chatelin and Pierre Metzler,
                                                                        lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The object of the present application, pursuant to an arbi-
tration clause within the meaning of Article 238 [ex                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Article 181] of the EC Treaty, is an order requiring the
Commission, representing the European Community, to pay
the Applicant the sum of 40 693 ECU, in respect of the                  (1) annul the Commission’s decision C(2001) 3663 final of
execution of a contract concluded under the ESPRIT-Pro-                       16 November 2001 in Case REM 09/00;
gramme, aiming to stimulate the development of financial
infrastructure, systems and transaction mechanisms necessary            (2) order the Commission to pay the costs.
for the successful growth of electronic commerce within the
European Union. The Law of Belgium is the applicable law.
In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits as follows:        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     It executed its contractual tasks correctly, as stated
      repeatedly by the Commission during the project                   The applicant is the grantee of various customs permits
      execution and confirmed by the final Review Report. The           enabling it to organise Community transit. In that context, the
      amount of the account submitted by the applicant to               applicant organised various shipments of cigarettes to the
      the Commission for payment was justified and well                 Czech Republic under the rules governing external Community
      documented. There should be accordingly no grounds on             transit.In the case of certain of those shipments, dating from
      which the Commission may claim repayment of any                   1994, it subsequently became apparent that fraud had been
      amount.                                                           committed by third parties.
 ---pagebreak--- C 118/28               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.5.2002
In 1997 the applicant submitted to the Netherlands customs             Lastly, the applicant pleads infringement of the principle of
authorities an application for remission of import duties              proportionality. It claims that the duty charged is in any event
pursuant to Article 239 of Regulation No 2913/92 (1), since            disproportionate to any negligence on its part.
the applicant itself had not been involved in the fraud and had,
moreover, taken all possible steps to prevent the fraud.
According to the applicant, it was not to blame, in connection         (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
with those shipments, for any fraudulent acts or manifest                  establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302 of
negligence. The Netherlands authorities passed that application            19.10.1992, p. 1).
on to the Commission in accordance with Article 905 of                 (2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
Regulation No 2454/93 (2). By the contested decision, the                  down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
Commission refused the remission of the customs duties.                    (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code
                                                                           (OJ L 253 of 11.10.1993, p. 1).
                                                                       Action brought on 12 March 2002 by Organización de
The applicant pleads, first, infringement of Article 907 of            Productores de Túnidos Congelados against Commission
Regulation No 2454/93. According to the applicant, the time-                            of the European Communities
limit of nine months for issuing the decision was wrongly
extended three times. The applicant further claims that its
rights of defence have been infringed. It states that it was not                                 (Case T-69/02)
kept informed of the course of the procedure, and in particular
of the questions put by the Commission to the Netherlands
authorities. Furthermore, the applicant was initially denied                                    (2002/C 118/45)
access to the complete file for the purposes of submitting its
observations. However, the Commission calculated the time                                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
which elapsed in that connection as an extension of time. Yet,
according to the applicant, the time-limit for taking a decision
could not be extended whilst the applicant remained unaware
of the questions put and was denied complete access to the
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
file.
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities on 12 March 2002 by the Organiza-
                                                                       ción de Productores de Túnidos Congelados, whose registered
                                                                       office is in Bermeo (Vizcaya, Spain), represented by Ramón
                                                                       Garcia-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and Javier Guillém Carrau, law-
                                                                       yers.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant further pleads infringement of the principle of
legal certainty. It argues that, pursuant to Article 907 of            —     declare the present action admissible;
Regulation No 2454/93, a decision in its favour must be
deemed to have been taken after nine months had elapsed,               —     annul the measure which is the subject-matter of the
since it was not aware of any extension of the time-limit                    present action by which the European Commission has
provided for in that article.                                                reduced the quantities in respect of which OPTUC is
                                                                             eligible for compensation, namely, Article 2(2) of and
                                                                             the annex to Regulation Commission Regulation (EC)
                                                                             No 2496/2001 of 19 December 2001 providing for
                                                                             compensation to producer organisations for tuna deliver-
                                                                             ed to the processing industry between 1 January and
                                                                             31 March 2001 (1),
                                                                       —     make any other appropriate order requiring the Com-
The applicant further contests the Commission’s conclusion                   mission to fulfil its obligations under Article 233 EC and,
that it was manifestly negligent. It argues that it did not itself           in particular, order the European Commission to re-
infringe any rules of law and acted in accordance with                       examine the matter;
established usages and international practice. There was no
causal link between the involvement of the applicant and the           —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
fraud which was perpetrated.                                                 pay the costs.


title: Case T-590/11: Action brought on 14 November 2011 — S & S Szlegiel Szlegiel i Wiśniewski v OHIM — Scotch & Soda (SODA)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/61

      Action brought on 14 November 2011 — S & S Szlegiel Szlegiel i Wiśniewski v OHIM — Scotch & Soda (SODA)
      (Case T-590/11)
      (2012/C 25/117)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English

         Parties

         Applicant: S & S Piotr Szlegiel Jacek Szlegiel i Robert Wiśniewski sp. j. (Gorzów Wielkopolski, Republic of Poland) (represented by: R. Sikorski, adwokat)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Scotch & Soda BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 August 2011 in case R 1570/2010-2;

                  —

                  Reject in its entirety the opposition No B1438250;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to register the trade mark applied for; and

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

         Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SODA’, for goods in class 25 — Community trade mark application No 6970875

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

         Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 3593498 of the word mark ‘SCOTCH & SODA’, for goods in class 25

         Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

         Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed: (i) to appreciate that there were sufficient visual, aural and conceptual differences between the marks, particularly with respect to its analysis of the conceptual meanings of the marks; (ii) to properly circumscribe and analyse the dominant element of the contested signs; and (iii) to properly take into consideration the level of attention of the average consumer of the category of goods concerned.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation Française (Chambre Sociale) by judgment of 28 March 1995 in the case of Caisse Nationale d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés (CNAVTS) v. Evelyne Thibault (Case C-136/95)

text:
 22 . 7. 95                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 189/7
— Question 3 :                                                           Appeal brought on 27 April 1995 by Vereniging
                                                                         van Samenwerkende Prijsregelende Organisaties in de
       If questions 1 and 2a to 2d are answered to the effect that       Bouwnijverheid ( SPO ) and 28 others against the judgment
       set-off is in general possible, or possible subject to            delivered on 21 February 1995 by the Court of First Instance
       certain conditions , is Article 15 ( 3 ) of Council               of the European Communities in Case T-29/92 between
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992                     Vereniging van Samenwerkende Prijsregelende Organisaties
       establishing a support system for producers of certain            in de Bouwnijverheid ( SPO ) and 28 others and the
       arable crops (*) to be interpreted as meaning that a                        Commission of the European Communities
       Member State is precluded from requiring a national                                        Case C-137/95 P )
       intervention agency to effect set-off in the case of a
       beneficiary of compensatory payments with outstanding                                        ( 95/C 189/14
       debts to the State which could otherwise be involved in
       set-off ?                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 21 February
                                                                         1 995 by the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities in Case T-29/92 between Vereniging van
— Question 4 :
                                                                         Samenwerkende Prijsregelende Organisaties in de
       Is Article 10 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1765/92 to be        Bouwnijverheid ( SPO ) and 28 others and the Commission
       interpreted as meaning that the sums of compensation              of the European Communities was brought before the
       in question are to be paid over immediately the                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 April
       intervention agency has concluded the procedure                   1995 by Vereniging van Samenwerkende Prijsregelende
       with regard to the beneficiary's application, or is it            Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid ( SPO ) and 28 others ,
       permissible to delay the payment for an investigation as          represented by L. H. van Lennep, of The Hague Bar, and
       to whether the State has outstanding claims against the           E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an
       beneficiary in respect of which it wishes to effect a             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L.
       set-off, provided always that the payment is effected at          Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume .
       the latest by 31 December of the relevant support                 The appellants claim that the Court should :
       year ?
                                                                         — set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
 f 1 ) OJ No L 181 , 1 . 7 . 1992 , p . 12 .                                 the European Communities of 21 February 1995 in Case
                                                                             T-29/92 ( l ),
                                                                         — annul, wholly or at least in part, Commission Decision
                                                                             92/204/EEC of 5 February 1992 relating to a proceeding
                                                                             pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( IV/31.572 and
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de                          32.571 — Building and construction industry in the
Cassation Française ( Chambre Sociale ) by judgment of                       Netherlands ),
28 March 1995 in the case of Caisse Nationale d'Assurance
Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés ( CNAVTS ) v. Evelyne              — order the Commission to pay the costs of the
                                 Thibault                                    proceedings before the Court of First Instance and of
                            ( Case C-136/95 )
                                                                             the appeal .
                               95/C 189/ 13 )                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        — Infringement and/or misapplication of Articles 85 ( 3 ),
                                                                             173 and/or 190 of the EC Treaty and/or of Article 9 ( 1 )
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de
                                                                             of Regulation No 17/62 , and in any event of the general
Cassation Française ( Chambre Sociale ) ( French Court of
                                                                             principles of Community law requiring reasons to be
Cassation, Social Affairs Chamber ) of 28 March 1995 ,
                                                                             given for (judicial ) decisions, alternatively of the right to
which was received at the Court Registry on 28 April 1995 ,
                                                                             a fair hearing, in that the Court of First Instance wrongly
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Caisse Nationale                     considered and decided the matters stated and set forth
d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés ( CNAVTS )
                                                                             in paragraphs 266 , 267, 286 to 300 inclusive and 310 to
v. Evelyne Thibault on the following question:
                                                                             314 inclusive of its contested judgment, since, in thus
                                                                             considering and ruling on the case in the course of its
Must Articles 1 ( 1 ), 2 ( 1 ), 5 ( 1 ) and, if relevant, 2 (4 ) of          review of the evaluation by the Commission of the
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                       appellants ' application for exemption, the Court of First
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men                   Instance :
and women as regards access to employment, vocational
training and promotion, and working conditions ( ! ) be                      ( a ) limited its review of the legality of the decision of the
interpreted as meaning that a woman may not be deprived                            Commission to the Commission's appraisal of the
of the right to an assessment of performance, and                                  rules in the light of the second and third conditions
consequently to the possibility of an advancement in career,                       of exemption contained in Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EC
on the ground that she was absent from work by reason of                           Treaty, without establishing the benefits and
maternity leave ?                                                                  objectives of those rules, and consequently without
                                                                                determining the relevant facts needing to be
H OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .                                            established for the purposes of an assessment in the
                                                                                light of the second and third conditions contained in
                                                                                Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty;


title: Case T-380/12: Action brought on 22 August 2012 — Demon International v OHIM — Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo (DEMON)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/28

      Action brought on 22 August 2012 — Demon International v OHIM — Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo (DEMON)
      (Case T-380/12)
      (2012/C 331/53)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Demon International, LC (Orem, United States) (represented by: T. Krüger, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo (Thiene (VI), Italy)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 June 2012 in Case R 1845/2011-4;

                  —

                  order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the action and of the appeal proceedings R 1845/2011-4.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘Demon’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark No 6 375 398

         Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo

         Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Demon International, LC

         Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: International word mark ‘DEMON’ for goods in Class 28

         Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application for a declaration of invalidity was granted in part

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was allowed and the application for a declaration of invalidity dismissed

         Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-27/10: Action brought on 27 January 2010 — AC-Treuhand v Commission

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/45

         Action brought on 27 January 2010 — AC-Treuhand v Commission
   (Case T-27/10)
   2010/C 100/70
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: AC-Treuhand AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Steinle and I. Hermeneit, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat stabilisers) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2(17) and (38) of the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the cost of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant has brought an action against Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat stabilisers). In the contested decision, fines were imposed on the applicant and other undertakings on the grounds of an infringement of Article 81 EC and — since 1 January 1994 — of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. According to the Commission, the applicant participated in agreements and/or concerted practices in the market for tin stabilisers and in the market for ESBO/esters in the European Economic Area which consisted in the fixing of prices, the sharing of markets through the allocation of supply quotas, the sharing and allocation of customers as well as the exchange of sensitive commercial information, especially concerning customers, production volumes and quantities supplied.
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward nine pleas in law.
   First, the applicant claims that the Commission was wrong to assume that the cartel relating to tin stabilisers existed until 21 March 2000 and relating to ESBO/esters until 26 September 2000. The applicant submits in this respect that the cartel ceased its activity in the middle of 1999.
   As the second plea in law, the applicant submits that the Commission’s right to impose a fine on the applicant had become time-barred. The applicant claims that the binding limitation period of ten years ended in the middle of 1999. Further, the period of limitation was not suspended during the proceedings in Joined Cases T-125/03 and T-253/03 Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v Commission.
   By way of a third plea in law, the applicant claims that there has been an infringement of Article 81 EC and the principle of legality since, in its capacity as a consulting company, sanctions could not be imposed on the applicant under Article 81 EC. In this respect, the applicant submits that the wording of Article 81 EC does not comprise its conduct, and that, at the moment the offence was committed, such an interpretation of Article 81 EC could at any rate not be envisaged.
   In the alternative, the applicant criticises, by way of the fourth, fifth and sixth plea, errors made by the Commission in respect of the assessment of the fine. In detail, the applicant submits that no more than a symbolic fine could have been imposed on the applicant since it could not be envisaged, at the moment the offence was committed, that Article 81 EC would be interpreted to also comprise consulting companies. Further, the Guidelines on the method of setting fines (1) have been infringed, since the fine should not have been set at a flat-rate, but calculated in relation to the fee which the applicant received for its services. Furthermore, the Commission infringed the ten-percent ceiling provided for in the second sentence of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) because a single offence was committed only. In this respect, the applicant submits further that the fines imposed threaten its existence and are incompatible with the whole purpose of that ceiling.
   In the context of the three final pleas, the applicant claims that procedural errors were made. The applicant claims an infringement of the principle that cases must be disposed of within a reasonable time (seventh plea), and criticises that the applicant was informed too late of the investigation opened against it (eighth plea) and that the contested decision was not properly notified to the applicant (ninth plea).

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

      (2)  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)


               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/1

         (2008/C 327/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 313, 6.12.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 301, 22.11.2008

      OJ C 285, 8.11.2008

      OJ C 272, 25.10.2008

      OJ C 260, 11.10.2008

      OJ C 247, 27.9.2008

      OJ C 236, 13.9.2008

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2005 in Case T-303/03 Lidl Stiftung v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for word mark Salvita — Earlier national word mark SOLEVITA — Proof of use of the earlier national trade mark — Rejection of the opposition)

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/25

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 7 June 2005
   in Case T-303/03 Lidl Stiftung v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for word mark Salvita - Earlier national word mark SOLEVITA - Proof of use of the earlier national trade mark - Rejection of the opposition)
   (2005/C 193/41)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-303/03: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG, established in Neckarsulm (Germany), represented by P. Groß, lawyer, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: U. Pfleghar and G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court, being REWE-Zentral AG, established in Cologne (Germany), represented initially by M. Kinkeldey, and subsequently by M. Kinkeldey and C. Schmitt, lawyers — action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2003 in Case R 408/2002-1 concerning the opposition of the proprietor of the national mark SOLEVITA to the registration of the Community word mark Salvita — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Šváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003.


title: Case T-244/09: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2010 — Accenture Global Services v OHIM — Silver Creek Properties (ascensa) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark acsensa — Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks ACCENTURE and accenture — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2010 — Accenture Global Services v OHIM — Silver Creek Properties (ascensa)
   (Case T-244/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark acsensa - Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks ACCENTURE and accenture - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2010/C 317/55
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Accenture Global Services GmbH (Schaffhausen, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Niebel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Silver Creek Properties SA (Panama, Panama)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2009 (Case R 802/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Accenture Global Services GmbH and Silver Creek Properties SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Accenture Global Services GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.


title: Case T-744/15: Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Puro v OHIM (‘smartline’)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/23

         Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Puro v OHIM (‘smartline’)
   (Case T-744/15)
   (2016/C 078/34)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Puro Italian Style SpA (Puro SpA) (Modena, Italy) (represented by: F. Terrano, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘smartline’ — Application for registration No 12 574 802

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2015 in Case R 2258/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-600/11: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2014 — Schuhhaus Dielmann v OHIM — Carrera (Carrera panamericana) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community Carrera panamericana — Earlier Community figurative mark CARRERA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/17

      Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2014 — Schuhhaus Dielmann v OHIM — Carrera (Carrera panamericana)
      (Case T-600/11) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community Carrera panamericana - Earlier Community figurative mark CARRERA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
      (2014/C 71/29)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Schuhhaus Dielmann GmbH & Co. KG (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: W. Göpfert, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Carrera SpA (Caldiero, Italy)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2011 (Case R 1989/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Carrera SpA and Schuhhaus Dielmann GmbH & Co. KG.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Schuhhaus Dielmann GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Joined Cases C-410/08 to C-412/08: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany)) — Swiss Caps AG v Hauptzollamt Singen (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Tariff headings 1515, 1517, 2106 and 3004 — Gelatin capsules — Fish oil, wheat-germ oil and black cumin oil — Concept of packaging )

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany)) — Swiss Caps AG v Hauptzollamt Singen
   (Joined Cases C-410/08 to C-412/08) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Tariff headings 1515, 1517, 2106 and 3004 - Gelatin capsules - Fish oil, wheat-germ oil and black cumin oil - Concept of ‘packaging’)
   2010/C 51/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Swiss Caps AG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Singen

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) — Headings 1517 (‘Margarine; edible mixtures or preparations of animal or vegetable fats or oils or of fractions of different fats or oils of this chapter, other than edible fats or oils or their fractions of heading 1516’) and 2106 (‘Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included’) — Rule 5(b) in Part A of Section I of Part One of that annex — Tariff classification of a fish-oil preparation to which vitamin E has been added and which is contained in capsules consisting of gelatin, glycerol and water — Concept of ‘packing material’

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2388/2000 of 13 October 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that:

               —

               edible preparations presented in the form of capsules containing 600 mg of cold-pressed concentrated fish oil and 22.8 mg of concentrated vitamin E in a casing consisting of 212.8 mg of gelatin, 77.7 mg of glycerol and 159.6 mg of purified water and intended for use as a food supplement;

               —

               edible preparations presented in the form of capsules containing 580 mg of wheat-germ oil in a casing consisting of 250 mg of granulated starch and intended for use as a food supplement; and

               —

               edible preparations presented in the form of capsules containing 500 mg of cold-pressed black cumin oil, 38.7 mg of soya oil, 18.8 mg of vitamin E, 16 mg of butterfat, 10 mg of lecithin, 8.2 mg of wax, 8 mg of calcium pantothenate, 0.2 mg of folic acid and 0.11 mg of biotin in a casing consisting of 313.97 mg of gelatin mass (47.3 % gelatin, 17.2 % glycerine, 35.5 % water), 4.30 mg of paste consisting of 50 % titanium dioxide and 50 % glycerine, and 1.73 mg of paste consisting of 25 % quinoline yellow lacquer and 75 % glycerine and intended for use as a food supplement

         come under heading 2106 of the abovementioned Combined Nomenclature.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 06.12.2008

      OJ C 327, 20.12.2008


title: Case T-355/08 P: Appeal brought on 26 August 2008 by Chantal De Fays against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 17 June 2008 in Case F-97/07 De Fays v Commission

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/48

         Appeal brought on 26 August 2008 by Chantal De Fays against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 17 June 2008 in Case F-97/07 De Fays v Commission
   (Case T-355/08 P)
   (2008/C 285/87)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Chantal De Fays (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Moyse, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Declare the present appeal admissible;

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               grant the application for annulment made by the appellant before the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present appeal, the appellant seeks to have set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) of 17 June 2008 in Case F-97/07 dismissing her action against the decision of the appointing authority of 21 November 2006 applying Article 60 of the Staff Regulations.
   The appellant puts forward two pleas in law in support of her appeal:
   In first place, the appellant is of the view that the CST erred in law in its definition of the temporal scope of the decision of 21 November 2006 by which the administration, first, found that the appellant had been regularly absent from 19 October 2006 and, secondly, withheld her remuneration for the whole of the period not covered by annual leave. The appellant submits that the CST considered that the effects of the contested decision extended only from 19 October 2006 until 13 December 2006, that is, up to the point at which the administration received a medical certificate justifying the appellant's absence, whereas, in fact, the effects of that decision continue up to the present. That error of law is the outcome of an erroneous judicial assessment of the facts, the inaccuracy of which, in the appellant's view, is attributable to the documents on the case file.
   In second place, the appellant states that the fact that the CST based its decision that the administration was entitled to continue the suspension of the remuneration which was due to the appellant on the existence of an implied decision is an error of law, entailing breach of the second paragraph of Article 25, Article 59(1) and Article 60 of the Staff Regulations, the internal provisions of the Commission on the exercise of the powers conferred on the appointing authority and the rights of defence.


title: Case C-103/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 March 2013 — Snezhana Somova v Glaven direktor na Stolichno upravlenie ‘Sotsialno osiguryavane’

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 March 2013 — Snezhana Somova v Glaven direktor na Stolichno upravlenie ‘Sotsialno osiguryavane’
   (Case C-103/13)
   2013/C 129/18
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Snezhana Somova

      Defendant: Glaven direktor na Stolichno upravlenie ‘Sotsialno osiguryavane’

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the circumstances of the main proceedings should Article 48(1) TFEU and Article 49(1) and (2) TFEU be interpreted as permitting a provision of national legislation of a Member State such as Article 94(1) of the Kodeks na sotsialno osiguryavane (Social Security Code) in the main proceedings whereby insurance is required to have come to an end in order to grant an old age pension to a national of a Member State who at the time of applying for a pension is working as a self-employed person in another Member State and falls within the scope of application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community?

               2.

               Should Article 94(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 in conjunction with Article 48(1)(a) TFEU be interpreted as permitting an exception to the rule on aggregating periods of insurance in relation to periods completed in another Member State before the regulation was applied by the Member State to which the application for a pension is made, where the said provision affords the person insured the right to choose whether he or she specifies such periods for aggregation purposes and to assess the need for aggregation if, purely according to the law of the State to which the application is made, the period completed is insufficient to create entitlement to a pension and a sufficient period of time can only be achieved by paying insurance contributions?
               In these circumstances does Article 48(1)(a) TFEU permit the application of Article 46(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 on the aggregation of periods of insurance following commencement of the application of Regulation No 1408/71 to be waived at the discretion of the party insured where that party does not specify periods of insurance completed in another Member State in his or her application for a pension?

               3.

               Should Article 12(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 be interpreted as permitting recognition of periods of insurance as a result of paying insurance contributions as provided for under Bulgarian law in Paragraph 9(3) [of the transitional and final provisions of the] Kodeks za sotsialno osiguryavane (Social Security Code) where, as in the circumstances appertaining in the main proceedings, such recognised periods of insurance overlap with periods of insurance completed under the law of another Member State?

               4.

               Should Article 12(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 be interpreted as permitting a Member State to stop payments and demand the refunding of all payments of an old age pension granted to a national of that Member State under national law if the conditions laid down in the regulation only existed at the time that the pension was granted and, as a result of considerations based solely on national law according to which the insurance of the party concerned in another Member State had not come to an end by the time that the pension was granted, a period of insurance was recognised under national law due to payment of insurance contributions without taking into account periods of insurance which were being completed in another Member State at the time that the pension was granted and without considering whether a different amount of pension should have been assessed?
               If the refunding of pension payments is permissible, does it then follow from the principles of equivalence and effectiveness derived from European Union law (‘EU law’) that interest is due even where the national law of the Member State does not make provision for payment of interest in the case of repayment of a pension granted pursuant to an international treaty?