title: Case C-172/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that Court of 31 March 2003 in the appeal by Dr. Wolfgang Heiser against Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol

text:
5.7.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 158/9
The Commission claims that the Court should:                              country (restricted tax liability) are subject to a tax at source of
                                                                          such a nature that a basic allowance or other allowance
—     declare that, by failing to bring into force a system of full       for personal circumstances is not granted, whereas persons
      protection for certain species in Annex II to Council               resident in the country are entitled to such an allowance at the
      Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-                 time of ordinary assessment to income tax in respect of all
      vation of wild birds (1), as amended by Council Directive           income which they receive in the Member State and abroad
      94/24/EC of 8 June 1994 ( 2), the Hellenic Republic has             (full tax liability), but where the first mentioned person’s lack
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the             of right to a basic allowance is taken into account, inter alia,
      directive;                                                          by means of a tax rate which is lower than the rate applicable
                                                                          for taxable persons resident in the country?
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission considers that the Hellenic Republic did not
correctly apply Article 7(4) of the directive, since, because late
dates were fixed for the end of the hunting season, it did not
bring into force a system of full protection for certain species          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
in Annex II to the directive. A percentage of those birds,                richtshof by order of that Court of 31 March 2003 in the
smaller or greater according to species, is not protected from            appeal by Dr. Wolfgang Heiser against Finanzlandesdirek-
hunting activities in the period when they move in search of a                                        tion für Tirol
mate during which their survival is particularly threatened. In
reality such a system does not ensure the full protection of
birds during the stage when they move to their rearing
                                                                                (Case C-172/03)
grounds, in infringement of Article 7(4) of the directive.
( 1) OJ L 103 of 25.4.1979, p. 1.                                                                   (2003/C 158/16)
( 2) OJ L 164 of 30.6.1994, p. 9.
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
                                                                          hof (Supreme Administrative Court) of 31 March 2003,
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 14 April 2003, for a
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten                 preliminary ruling in the appeal by Dr. Wolfgang Heiser
by order of that Court of 10 April 2003 in the case of                    against Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol (Regional Finance
        Florian W. Wallentin against Riksskatteverket                     Directorate for the Tyrol) (Appeal Senate I) on the following
                                                                          question:
                         (Case C-169/03)
                         (2003/C 158/15)                                  Is State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC (formerly
                                                                          Article 92 of the EC Treaty) implied by the existence of a rule
                                                                          such as that contained in Article XIV (3) of Federal Law BGBl
                                                                          21/1995, as amended by BGBl 756/1996, whereby in the case
                                                                          of medical practitioners the conversion from turnover liable
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          to turnover tax to turnover exempt from turnover tax does
European Communities by order of the Regeringsrätten
(Supreme Administrative Court) of 10 April 2003, received at              not, in the case of goods that continue to be used in the
                                                                          business, result in input tax already deducted being reduced
the Court Registry on 14 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                          under Article 20 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC ( 1)?
in the case of Florian W. Walentin against Riksskatteverket on
the following question:
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.
Is Article 39 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as precluding a
Member State’s legislation which provides that natural persons
who are not regarded as resident in the country for tax
purposes but who receive income from employment in the


title: Case C-70/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu (Portugal) lodged on February 2014 — Agrocaramulo — Empreendimentos Agropecuários do Caramulo SA v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu (Portugal) lodged on February 2014 — Agrocaramulo — Empreendimentos Agropecuários do Caramulo SA v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP)
   (Case C-70/14)
   2014/C 135/27
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agrocaramulo — Empreendimentos Agropecuários do Caramulo SA

      Defendant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP)

      Question referred

   Given that the Ministério da Agricultura, do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas, IFAP — Instituto de Financiamento de Agricultura e Pescas (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries), IP, held that ‘only goods included in the following are eligible for export refunds:

               —

               Export refund nomenclature code 0207 12 10 9900, corresponding to what are referred to as ‘70% chickens’ which do not have completely ossified sternum tips, femurs and tibias, or

               —

               Export refund nomenclature code 0207 12 90 9190, corresponding to what are referred to as ‘65% chickens’ which do not have completely ossified sternum tips, femurs and tibias’, and that the company actually exported spent laying hens (hens slaughtered at the end of their laying period, when their skeleton is completely ossified), is the product ‘spent laying hens’ included in the description of goods ‘Others’, with the product codes ‘0207 12 10 9900’ and ‘0207 12 90 9190’, indicated in Annex I of Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87, (1) amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2319/2002 (2) of 13 December 2002, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2180/2003 (3) of 5 December 2003, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2199/2004 (4) of 10 December 2004 and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2091/2005 (5) of 15 December, relating to the publication, for the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, respectively, of the nomenclature of agricultural products for export refunds?’

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 of 17 December 1987 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds (OJ 1987 L 366, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ 2002 L 325, p. 35.

      (3)  OJ 2003 L 335, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ 2004 L 380, p. 1.

      (5)  OJ 2005 L 343, p. 1.


title: Case T-733/14: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Parliament

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/51

         Order of the General Court of 17 July 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Parliament
   (Case T-733/14) (1)

   (2015/C 320/70)
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.


title: Case C-171/09: Action brought on 13 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/30

         Action brought on 13 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-171/09)
   2009/C 153/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Peere and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of ‘politically exposed person’ and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis (1), or in any event by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for the transposition of Directive 2006/70/EC expired on 15 December 2007. However, at the time the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the necessary implementing measures or, in any event, had not informed the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 214, p. 29.


title: Case T-153/03: Action brought on 18 April 2003 by Inex N.V. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
C 171/36              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         19.7.2003
Action brought on 18 April 2003 by Inex N.V. against the                 Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                    Appeal:
                        (Case T-153/03)                                  Pleas in law:                 Infringement of the concept of
                                                                                the likelihood of confusion as
                                                                                interpreted by the Court of Justice
                        (2003/C 171/60)                                                                in the light of:
                                                                                —     the identity of the goods;
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                —     the similarity between the
                                                                                mark against which the
                                                                                opposition was directed and
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                               the dominant and distinctive
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                                   element of the first mark;
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                                —     the fact that the goods are
18 April 2003 by Inex N.V., represented by Thierry van Innis,
                                                                                targeted at the general public
lawyer.
                                                                                for everyday use
Robert Wiseman & Sons Limited, Glasgow (United Kingdom)
was also a party to the proceedings before the Second Board
of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision handed down by the Second Board of
      Appeal of the defendant on 4 February 2003 in Case R               Action brought on 24 April 2003 by Michael Cwik against
      106/2001-2;                                                              the Commission of the European Communities
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case T-155/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/61)
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for Com-           Robert Wiseman & Sons Limited,                                 (Language of the case: French)
munity trade mark            Glasgow (United Kingdom)
Community trade mark         Figurative mark composed of the
sought                       graphic representation of a cow-
                             hide in black and white — appli-            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                             cation no. 132, 134, filed for              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                             goods and services in classes 29,           European Communities on 24 April 2003 by Michael Cwik,
                             32 and 39 (in particular: milk,             residing in Tervuren (Belgium), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
                             milk beverages, milk products,              lawyer.
                             dairy products, cream and yogh-
                             urt)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Proprietor of mark or        The plaintiff
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:                                                      —     annul the decision of the Secretary General of 13 June
                                                                               2002 confirming, without amendment, the applicant’s
Proprietor of mark or        Composite Benelux trade mark                      staff report for the period running from 1 July 1995 to
sign                         no 580 538 comprising in part a                   30 June 1997;
                             graphic representation of a cow-
                             hide in black and white registered
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 15 000 by
                             for goods in classes 29 and 30
                                                                               way of damages;
Decision of the Oppo-        Rejection of the opposition
sition Division:                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-523/08: Action brought on 1 December 2008 — Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat v OHIM — Mary Quant Cosmetics Japan (AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/46

         Action brought on 1 December 2008 — Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat v OHIM — Mary Quant Cosmetics Japan (AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA)
   (Case T-523/08)
   (2009/C 32/88)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Bercovitz Álvarez, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Mary Quant Cosmetics Japan Ltd (Tokyo, Japan)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the contested decision be annulled and replaced with a different decision in which registration of Community trade mark No 3.291.234 is granted in respect of all the goods requested in Class 3 of the Classification (including ‘soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions’) and MARY QUANT Cosmetics Japan Ltd. be ordered to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings, and

               —

               the defendant, and any intervening or other party, be ordered to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a pink flower with a yellow centre on a light green background with the wording AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA (application No 3.291.234) for goods in, inter alia, Classes 3, 5, 14 and 21.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: MARY QUANT Cosmetics Japan Ltd.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark representing a black flower with a black centre surrounded by a white outline: British trade marks for goods in Classes 3 and 5, and a Community trade mark for goods in Classes 3 and 21.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was upheld in part.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 October 2004 in Case C-480/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'arbitrage): Hugo Clemens, b.v.b.a. Valkaniersgilde against the Walloon region, Council of Ministers (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Species born and reared in captivity)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/22

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 1 October 2004
   in Case C-480/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'arbitrage): Hugo Clemens, b.v.b.a. Valkaniersgilde against the Walloon region, Council of Ministers (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 79/409/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Species born and reared in captivity)
   (2005/C 6/43)
   Languages of the case: French and Dutch
   In Case C-480/03: Hugo Clemens, b.v.b.a. Valkaniersgilde v Walloon region, Council of Ministers – reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Cour d'arbitrage (Belgium), by judgment of 29 October 2003, received at the Court on 18 November 2003 – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur) and J. Makarczyk, Judges; Advocate General: J. Kokott, Registrar: R. Grass, has given an order on 1 October 2004 in which it:
   Declares that Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April on the conservation of wild birds is to be interpreted as not being applicable to species born and reared in captivity and, accordingly, Member States remain competent, as Community law now stands, to regulate the matter, subject to Articles 28 to 30 EC.

      (1)  OJ C 35 of 7.2.2004.


title: Case T-321/09: Action brought on 14 August 2009 — skytron energy v OHIM (arraybox)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/68

         Action brought on 14 August 2009 — skytron energy v OHIM (arraybox)
   (Case T-321/09)
   2009/C 267/123
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: skytron energy GmbH & Co. KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by H.-J. Omsels, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 4 June 2009 in Case R 1680/2008-1;

               —

               In the alternative, refer the case back to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘arraybox’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 37, 38 and 42 (application No 6 710 479)

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) as the sign applied for is not descriptive and has the requisite distinctive character.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-395/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 — Elti v Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro (Application for interim measures — Public procurement — Tendering procedure — Rejection of a tender — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Disregard of the formal requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/34

         Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 — Elti v Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro
   (Case T-395/11 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Public procurement - Tendering procedure - Rejection of a tender - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Disregard of the formal requirements - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 347/62
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Elti d.o.o. (Gornja Radgona, Slovenia) (represented by: N. Zidar Klemenčič, lawyer)

      Defendant: Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro (represented by: initially N. Bertolini, agent, then J. Stuyck and A. M. Vandromme, lawyers)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for the suspension of operation of the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro of 21 March 2011 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the public procurement procedure EuropeAid/129435/C/SUP/ME-NP and containing the information that that contract had been awarded to another tenderer.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case F-92/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 May 2007 — Antas v Council

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/45

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 May 2007 — Antas v Council
   (Case F-92/06) (1)

   (2007/C 155/84)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006, p. 21.


title: Case C-158/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Elektriciteits Produktiemaatschappij Zuid-Nederland EPZ NV v Bestuur van de Nederlandse Emissieautoriteit (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Atmospheric pollution — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Directive 2003/87/EC — Concept of ‘installation’ — Inclusion of the fuel storage site — Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 — Concept of ‘fuel exported from the installation’)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/14

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Elektriciteits Produktiemaatschappij Zuid-Nederland EPZ NV v Bestuur van de Nederlandse Emissieautoriteit
   (Case C-158/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Atmospheric pollution - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Directive 2003/87/EC - Concept of ‘installation’ - Inclusion of the fuel storage site - Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 - Concept of ‘fuel exported from the installation’))
   (2016/C 296/19)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elektriciteits Produktiemaatschappij Zuid-Nederland EPZ NV

      Defendant: Bestuur van de Nederlandse Emissieautoriteit

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A fuel storage site of a coal-fired power plant such as that at issue in the main proceedings and as described by the referring court is part of an ‘installation’ within the meaning of Article 3(e) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Decision No 1359/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013.

               2.

               The first subparagraph of Article 27(2) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 of 21 June 2012 on the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 206/2014 of 4 March 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that coal lost as a result of the process by which it naturally self-heats while in storage on a site that is part of an installation within the meaning of Article 3(e) of Directive 2003/87 cannot be regarded as coal exported from that installation.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.


title: Case T-39/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Cargolux Airlines v Commission

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/26

         Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Cargolux Airlines v Commission
   (Case T-39/11)
   2011/C 80/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cargolux Airlines International SA (Sandweiler, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Joshua, Barrister, and G. Goeteyn, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Articles 1-4 in whole or in part insofar as they relate to the applicant;

               —

               cancel the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 5;

               —

               alternatively, substantially reduce the fine pursuant to the unlimited jurisdiction of the Court;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 in case COMP/39.258 — Airfreight insofar as it finds that the applicant infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA by coordinating with other carriers its pricing behaviour for air freight services in respect of (i) fuel surcharges, (ii) security surcharges, and (iii) the non-payment of commissions on surcharges.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the manifest error of assessment since the Commission wrongly categorised the conduct as a restriction by object and has demonstrated no anti-competitive effect. In this regard the applicant submits that:

                           —

                           the existence of the concept of restriction by object does not liberate the Commission from the duty to conduct some kind of assessment which it failed to do;

                           —

                           the decision does not articulate any theory of harm, in particular given that all allegations on the fixing of underlying rates have been dropped.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the breach of essential procedural requirement, failure to give reasons, violation of rights of defence and manifest error of assessment since the Commission failed to identify with sufficient particularity the scope and parameters of conduct supposedly constitutive of the single continuous infringements.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment since the Commission failed to establish a reliable evidential basis for its conclusions or to prove the facts on which it bases its findings to the required legal standard. In this regard, the applicant submits that:

                           —

                           none of the errors contained in the statement of objections and brought to the Commission’s attention at the time have been corrected in the decision;

                           —

                           the Commission has abused the concept of the single continuous infringement by insisting that entirely innocent conduct can form part of the illegal enterprise and has used the label of a ‘global cartel’ as an excuse to bring in entirely prejudicial and irrelevant evidence.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by wrongly asserting jurisdiction over supposed anti-competitive coordination in relation to flights from third country airports to airports inside the EEA (‘inbound flights’). In the applicant’s submissions such activities are outside of the territorial scope of Article 101 TFUE and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, put forward as regards to the review of the fine under the unlimited jurisdiction of the Court, alleging a manifest error of assessment and breach of principle of proportionality. In this regard the applicant submits that:

                           —

                           the 2006 Fine Guidelines are not compatible with the requirement of Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) to base the fine on gravity and duration;

                           —

                           the Commission grossly overstated the overall gravity of the alleged infringement. Neither the percentage level (16 % of the value of sales), nor the additional amount are warranted in the present case;

                           —

                           in relation to the applicant, the Commission wrongly assessed the duration of the infringements, mistakenly rejected mitigating factors and failed to take account of all relevant circumstances including the overall fairness of the sanctions and the economic situation of the applicant.

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


title: Case T-462/12: Action brought on 19 October 2012 — Pilkington Group v Commission

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/30

         Action brought on 19 October 2012 — Pilkington Group v Commission
   (Case T-462/12)
   2012/C 379/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pilkington Group Ltd (St Helens, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Scott, S. Wisking and K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Order the annulment pursuant to Article 263 TFEU of the European Commission Decision of 6 August 2012 rejecting a request for confidential treatment (Decision C(2012) 5718 final) (Case COMP/39.125 — Carglass) (and in particular Article 4 thereof); and

               —

               Order that the defendant pay the applicant's costs in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed Article 296 TFEU, Article 8 of the Hearing Officer Mandate (1) and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of good administration by failing to examine adequately the applicant's detailed arguments and providing inadequate reasons for its approach.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed EU law (in particular Article 339 TFEU, Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2), Article 8 of the Hearing Officer Mandate) by deciding to publish information which, on application of the correct legal test and assessment, ought to be considered as falling within the obligation on professional secrecy, as the Commission:

                           —

                           failed to apply the correct legal test,

                           —

                           erred in its assessment of whether the information in question constitutes business secrets or other confidential information;

                           —

                           used irrelevant criteria such as that the information constitutes material facts of the alleged infringement; and

                           —

                           erred in its assessment of whether there are overriding reasons permitting disclosure, in particular in light of the Commission's own approach of refusing access to documents containing similar information and the case law of the European Courts, which creates a general presumption that such information is confidential and cannot be disclosed to the public.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed EU law by violating the principle of equal treatment by adopting an unfavourable approach in the case of the applicant as compared to undertakings in a similar position in other recent or contemporaneous proceedings.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed EU law by violating the principle of legitimate expectations in that it has breached the applicant's legitimate expectation to have confidential information obtained by or provided to the Commission in the context of competition proceedings protected from disclosure.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed EU law (in particular Article 339 TFEU, Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, Article 8 of the Hearing Officer Mandate) by deciding to publish information which is capable of identifying specific individuals.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed the principle of proportionality and Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (3) (in particular Article 4(2) thereof) by adopting a disproportionate means of disclosing the information in question and circumventing the principles and procedures of the said regulation.

      (1)  Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings, (OJ 2011 L 275, p. 29)

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 001, p. 1)

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43)


title: Case C-524/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo (Italy) lodged on 1 October 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Luca Menci

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo (Italy) lodged on 1 October 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Luca Menci
   (Case C-524/15)
   (2015/C 414/27)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bergamo

      Party to the main proceedings

   Luca Menci

      Question referred

   Does Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, interpreted in the light of Article 4 of Protocol No 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the related case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, preclude the possibility of conducting criminal proceedings concerning an act (non-payment of VAT) for which a definitive administrative penalty has been imposed on the defendant?


title: Case T-74/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 January 2009 — Germany v Commission (ERDF — Reduction of financial assistance — Change to the financing plan without the consent of the Commission — Maximum rates of financing laid down for specific measures — Concept of significant change — Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Duty to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Action for annulment)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/36

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 January 2009 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-74/07) (1)

   (ERDF - Reduction of financial assistance - Change to the financing plan without the consent of the Commission - Maximum rates of financing laid down for specific measures - Concept of significant change - Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 - Duty to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Action for annulment)
   (2009/C 69/83)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Blaschke, acting as Agents, assisted by C. von Donat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and L. Flynn, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 7271 final of 27 December 2006 on the reduction of the period of the financial contribution of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted to the Operational Programme under the Community initiative INTERREG II in the Saarland, Lorraine and Western Palatinate regions in Germany.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case F-36/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 October 2006 — Martin Magone v Commission

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/69

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 October 2006 — Martin Magone v Commission
   (Case F-36/06) (1)

   (2006/C 294/135)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.04.2005.


title: Case F-7/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 October 2013 — Aristidis Psarras v ENISA (Civil Service — Member of temporary staff — Appraisal — Annual appraisal for 2009 — Career development report — Application for annulment of the career development report — Act adversely affecting the applicant — Action manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/29

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 October 2013 — Aristidis Psarras v ENISA
   (Case F-7/12) (1)

   (Civil Service - Member of temporary staff - Appraisal - Annual appraisal for 2009 - Career development report - Application for annulment of the career development report - Act adversely affecting the applicant - Action manifestly inadmissible)
   2014/C 9/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Aristidis Psarras (Heraklion, Greece) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA) (represented by: E. Maurage, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2009 and the decision establishing the list of officials promoted in 2010 and, if necessary, the decision rejecting the applicant’s claim of 17 October 2011.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               The European Union Agency for Network and Information Security shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Psarras.

      (1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012, p. 20.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 6 June 1997 in the case of B. V. Maatschappij Drijvende Bokken, formerly Bonn & Mees, against Stichting Pensioenfonds voor de Vervoer- en Havenbedrijven (Case C-219/97)

text:
26 . 7. 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 228/ 11
Luxembourg at the office of Alessandro Morbilli,                       der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
European Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad                         6 June 1997, received at the Court Registry on 12 June
Adenauer, Kirchberg.                                                   1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of B. V.
                                                                       Maatschappij Drijvende Bokken, formerly Bonn & Mees,
The appellant claims that the Court should:                            against Stichting Pensioenfonds voor de Vervoer- en
                                                                       Flavenbedrijven on the following questions:
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
      16 April 1997 in Case T-80/96 Ana Maria Fernandes                ( a ) Is an occupational pension fund such as the Stichting
      Leite Mateus v. Council of the European Union,                         Pensioenfonds voor de Vervoer- en Havenbedrijven, to
                                                                             which all or one or more specified groups of
                                                                             employees in the relevant sector are obliged to be
— uphold the contentions put forward by the Council at                       affiliated by virtue of and in accordance with the
      first instance, namely:                                                WBPF (Wet betreffende Verplichte Deelneming in een
      — that the action should be dismissed, and
                                                                             Bedrijfspensioenfonds ( Law on compulsory affiliation
                                                                             to an occupational pension fund )), to be regarded as
      — that the applicants should be ordered to pay the                     an undertaking within the meaning of Articles 85 , 86
           costs ,
                                                                             or 90 of the EC Treaty ?
— make an appropriate order as to the costs of                         ( b ) Where a number of organizations which the
      proceedings before the Court of Justice.                               Minister subsequently regards as being sufficiently
                                                                             representative of the employers' associations and trade
                                                                             unions in a particular sector, within the meaning of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          the first paragraph of Article 3 of the WBPF, apply to
                                                                             the Minister pursuant to that provision for affiliation
The contested judgment infringes the legal framework laid                    to a particular pension fund within the meaning of
down by the notice of competition :                                          that Law to be made compulsory, is that joint action
                                                                             on the part of those organizations to be regarded as an
Infringement of the special conditions for admission to the                  agreement between undertakings, a decision by
competition: as may be seen from a reading of the                            associations of undertakings or a concerted practice
contested judgment, the applicant in Case T-80/96                            within the meaning of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty
submitted only a certificate as evidence of her professional                 which, within the meaning of that Treaty provision, ( i )
experience; she did not produce either a contract or a                       may affect trade between Member States, and ( ii ) has
letter of engagement as required by the notice of                            as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or
competition ( reproduced in paragraph 3 of the judgment).                    distortion of competition within the common market ?
That argument was put forward in the written stage and
pointed out on several occasions during the oral part, but             (c ) Is compulsory affiliation as described above to be
no mention was made of it in the judgment,                                   regarded as a measure which may render ineffective
                                                                             the competition rules applicable to undertakings, or, at
( in the alternative ) error in law with regard to the scope of              least, as a measure by which a Member State requires
the concept of 'first Escrituraria',                                         or favours the adoption of agreements contrary to
                                                                             Article 85 or reinforces their effects, or is that the case
                                                                             only in certain circumstances and, if so, in what
( in the alternative ) error in law with regard to the                       circumstances ?
interpretation of the candidature,
                                                                       ( d ) If question ( C ) is to be answered in the negative, are
( in the alternative ) the contested judgment was wrong to                   there other circumstances which may render such
find that the selection board had committed a manifest                       compulsory affiliation incompatible with the
error of assessment regarding professional experience .                      provisions of Article 90 of the EC Treaty and, if so,
                                                                             what circumstances ?
                                                                       ( e ) Can such compulsory affiliation be regarded as the
                                                                             grant to an occupational pension fund of an exclusive
                                                                             right within the meaning of Article 90 ( 1 ) of the EC
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad                        Treaty, and is such a pension fund placed as a result in
der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 6 June                          a dominant position which it abuses merely by
1997 in the case of B. V. Maatschappij Drijvende Bokken,                     exercising that exclusive right, in particular on the
formerly Bonn & Mees, against Stichting Pensioenfonds                        ground that such compulsory affiliation may affect
               voor de Vervoer- en Havenbedrijven                            trade between Member States and the provision of
                         ( Case C-2 19/97 )                                  services is limited, contrary to subparagraph ( b )
                           ( 97/C 228/23                                     of the second paragraph of Article 86, to the
                                                                             detriment of compulsorily affiliated undertakings and/
                                                                             or employees ? Alternatively, can such compulsory
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       affiliation create a situation in which a pension fund is
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad                            induced to commit such an abuse or is at least placed
 ---pagebreak--- No C 228/ 12          EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26 . 7. 97
     in a position which it itself could not take up without                    pursuant to a legal obligation to pay an amount
     infringing Article 86, whilst, as a result, a system of                    determined by a civil-law contract for valuable
     undistorted competition is not invariably guaranteed ?                     consideration ?
( f) If such compulsory affiliation is contrary to                      2.      Is that structuring of service relationships permissible
     Community law, does that mean that it is not legally                       in the light of Article 3 ( f), Article 5 or other
     valid ?                                                                    provisions of the EC Treaty, if competition on a .
                                                                                relevant market is thereby precluded for a long
                                                                                period, and where for the provisions of the service
                                                                                no service monopolies expressly provided for by law
                                                                                exist ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberste                       3.      May an individual derive, from the abovementioned
Gerichtshof by order of that court of 27 May 1997 in the                        or other provisions of Council Directive 89/665/EEC
land register case brought by Manfred Trummer and Dr                            on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
                           Peter Mayer                                          administrative provisions relating to the application
                       ( Case C-222/97 )                                        of review procedures to the award of public supply
                         ( 97/C 228/24 )                                        and public works contracts, a specific right to have
                                                                                review proceedings conducted before authorities or
                                                                                courts which comply with the provisions of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          Article 2 ( 8 ) of Directive 89/665/EEC (2 ) which right
European Communities by order of the Oberste Gerichts                          is so sufficiently precise and specific that, in the
hof ( Austrian Supreme Court) of 27 May 1997, which                             event of non-transposition of the Directive in
was received at the Court Registry on 13 June 1997, for a                       question by the Member State, an individual may
preliminary ruling in the land register case brought by                         successfully assert that legal right against that
Manfred Trummer and Dr Peter Mayer on the following                             Member State in legal proceedings ?
question:
                                                                        4.      In conducting a review procedure on the basis of an
Does the refusal to allow a mortgage to be created to                           individual's right, founded on Article 41 of Directive
cover an existing foreign-currency debt ( in this case in                       92/50/EEC in conjunction with Directive 89/665/
German marks ( DM )) constitute a restriction on the                            EEC, to the conduct of a review procedure, must a
movement of capital and payments compatible with                                national court, analogous to the Federal Procurement
Article 73b of the EC Treaty ?                                                  Office, refuse to take cognizance of provisions of
                                                                                national law such as Section 91 (2 ) ( 3 ) BVergG,
                                                                                which confer on the Federal Procurement Office
                                                                                powers of review only in the case of infringements of
                                                                                the Federal Procurement law and regulations
                                                                                adopted thereunder, on the ground that those
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverga                        provisions preclude a review procedure from being
beamt by order of that body of 15 May 1997 in the                               conducted under the Federal Procurement Law for
review proceedings brought by the applicant, HDM Flug                          awards of contracts for services, and must such a
service GmbH v. Hauptverband der osterreichischen                               national court conduct a review procedure in
      Sozialversicherungstrager, contract-awarding body                         accordance with the fourth part of the Federal
                       ( Case C-223 /97 )                                       Procurement Law ?
                         ( 97/C 228/25 )
                                                                        5 ( a ) Are the services mentioned in the facts of this case to
                                                                                be classified (with reference to Article 10 of Directive
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          92/50/EEC ) as services coming under Annex I (A) to
European Communities by an order of the Bundesvergabe                          the aformentioned Directive ( Category 3 — Air
amt ( Federal Procurement Office ) of 15 May 1997, which                        transport services of freight and passengers ) and
was received at the Court Registry on 13 June 1997, for a                       contracts    for such    services are  therefore   to  be
preliminary ruling in the review proceedings brought by                         awarded in accordance with the provisions of Titles
the applicant, HDM Flugservice GmbH v. Hauptverband                             III and IV of the Directive, or are they to be
der osterreichischen Sozialversicherungstrager, contract                       classified as services under Annex I ( B ) to the
awarding body, on the following questions :                                     Directive ( Health ) with the result that contracts for
                                                                                such services are to be awarded in accordance with
1.     Can a legal relationship, such as that in the main                       the provisions of Articles 13 and 14, or do those
       proceedings, be deemed to be a contract satisfying                       services fall outside the sphere of application of
       the criteria in Article 1 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Directive 92/50/                Directive 92/50/EEC ?
       CEE (') where, under that relationship, a public
       authority is obliged, on the basis of a State                    5 ( b ) Do the provisions of Articles 1 to 7 of Directive 92/
       agreement at private law providing for no                                50/EEC satisfy the preconditions laid down in the
       remuneration to provide services for remuneration ,                      Van Duyn judgment ( 3 ) on the direct applicability of
       whereby that remuneration is payable by a third                          a Community Directive, with the result that services
       party, also a public contract-awarding body,                             coming under Annex I ( B ) to the Directive are to be


title: Case T-263/13: Action brought on 8 May 2013 — Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung v OHIM — Rivella International (holzmichel)

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/43

         Action brought on 8 May 2013 — Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung v OHIM — Rivella International (holzmichel)
   (Case T-263/13)
   2013/C 207/73
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung GmbH (Sohland, Germany) (represented by: A. Weiß, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rivella International AG (Rothrist, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 February 2013 in Case R 1968/2011-1;

               —

               vary the contested decision in such a way as to reject the opponent’s opposition;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal procedure, or order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘holzmichel’ for goods and services in Classes 21, 24, 32, 33 and 38 — Community trade mark application No 8 904 278

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Rivella International AG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International registration of figurative marks containing the word elements ‘Michel’ and ‘Michel POWER’ for goods in Classes 29, 30, 32 and 33

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and registration refused

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


title: Judgment of the Court of 24 September 2014 in Case E-1/14 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2006/38/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures)

text:
               16.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 122/4

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 24 September 2014
   in Case E-1/14
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2006/38/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures)
   (2015/C 122/05)
   In Case E-1/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith, of all measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 18a of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, that is Directive 2006/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and Article 7 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 24 September 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 18a of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-218/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Germany), lodged on 10 May 2012 — Lokman Emrek v Vlado Sabranovic

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Germany), lodged on 10 May 2012 — Lokman Emrek v Vlado Sabranovic
   (Case C-218/12)
   2012/C 243/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Saarbrücken

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Lokman Emrek

      Respondent: Vlado Sabranovic

      Questions referred

               1.

               In cases in which a trader’s internet presence satisfies the ‘directing’ requirement, does Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) require, as a further unwritten condition, that the consumer was induced to enter into the contract by the website operated by the trader and consequently that the internet presence must be a causal factor in regard to the conclusion of the contract?

               2.

               In so far as a causal link between the ‘directing’ requirement and the conclusion of the contract is necessary: does Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001 also require that the contract was concluded as a distance contract?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


title: Case T-454/11: Action brought on 11 August 2011 — Luna International v OHMI — Asteris (Al bustan)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/22

         Action brought on 11 August 2011 — Luna International v OHMI — Asteris (Al bustan)
   (Case T-454/11)
   2011/C 319/48
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Luna International Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Asteris Industrial and Commercial Company SA (Athens, Greece)

      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 20 May 2011 in case R 1358/2008-2;

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘Al bustan’, for goods in classes 29, 30, 31 and 32 — Community trade mark registration No 3540846

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request pursuant to Articles 51(1)(b) and 52(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, and based its request on the earlier Greek trade mark registration No 137497 of the figurative mark ‘AL BUSTAN’, for goods in class 29

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the Community trade mark invalid in respect of part of the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 53(1), 57(2) and 57(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that the proprietor of the earlier national mark had furnished proof that during the five years preceding the date of the application for declaration of invalidity, the earlier mark had been put to genuine use in the Member State in which it was registered in connection with the goods for which it was registered or that there were proper reasons for non-use. Further the Board of Appeal made impermissible inferences from material of low (or no) evidentiary value.


title: Case C-448/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 July 2008  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany)) — cp-Pharma Handels GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1873/2003 — Veterinary medicinal product — Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 — Maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin — Progesterone — Restrictions on use — Directive 96/22/EC)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany)) — cp-Pharma Handels GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-448/06) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1873/2003 - Veterinary medicinal product - Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 - Maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin - Progesterone - Restrictions on use - Directive 96/22/EC)
   (2008/C 223/11)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Köln
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: cp-Pharma Handels GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1873/2003 of 24 October 2003 amending Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 9) in so far as, by limiting the conditions of use of progesterone, as an active substance of veterinary medicinal products, to application via the intravaginal route alone, it excludes the possibility of administering that substance in the form of an intramuscular injection — Whether or not the Commission has power to make that limitation in the light of Articles 1(a) and 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ 1990 L 224, p. 1) in conjunction with Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of ß-agonists, and repealing Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC (OJ 1996 L 125, p. 3)
   Operative part of the judgment
   Examination of the question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1873/2003 of 24 October 2003 amending Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-13/14: Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Hungary v European Commission

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/25

      Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Hungary v European Commission
      (Case T-13/14)
      (2014/C 71/48)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Parties

         Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2013) 7136 of 31 October 2013 on the partial repayment of national financial assistance granted to producer organisations for operational programmes carried out in Hungary in 2011.

                  —

                  Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant argues that the Commission exceeded its powers and breached the relevant provisions of European Union law in establishing the amount of the partial repayment to Hungary of the national financial assistance granted in 2011 to producer organisations operating in the fruit and vegetable sector.
      The applicant argues that European Union law does not allow the Commission, in its decision on the partial Community repayment of the national financial assistance granted pursuant to Article 103e of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (1) to producer organisations operating in the fruit and vegetable sector, to grant the repayment of only those amounts which were described as ‘estimated’ or ‘predicted’ by Hungary in its application for the grant of national assistance.
      The applicant takes the view that, under Article 103e of Regulation No 1234/2007, the Commission’s authorisation for national assistance relates to the grant of aid and not to the establishment, by the Commission, of an upper limit on the assistance which can be granted. According to the applicant, such an upper limit is unequivocally laid down by Regulation No 1234/2007, which provides that national assistance may not exceed 80 % of financial contributions to the operating funds of the members or of producer organisations. Nor do the rules on the partial Community repayment of national assistance allow the Commission, when authorising such partial repayment, to set as an upper limit for repayment the amount which the Member State indicated to the Commission in its application, either as the total amount of assistance or as the amount of assistance envisaged for certain producer organisations, particularly where the Hungarian Government stated that those amounts were merely projected or estimated amounts.
      Moreover, the applicant states that the Commission is entitled to verify that the assistance actually paid did not exceed the above-mentioned upper limit of 80 % and that the repayment requested does not exceed 60 % of the assistance granted, but not to set as an upper limit for repayment the amounts given in the application for authorisation, especially when that application stresses the provisional or estimated character of the data. Where — for certain reasons — the amount of the national assistance granted to a given producer organisation changes during the year, partial Community repayment will be granted on the basis of the amount actually paid, provided that the requirements of European Union law in that regard are fulfilled.

         (1)  1Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 March 2005 in Case T-184/01 IMS Health, Inc. v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Suspension of application then withdrawal of the contested decision in the course of the proceedings — No need to give a decision)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/20

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 March 2005
   in Case T-184/01 IMS Health, Inc. v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment - Suspension of application then withdrawal of the contested decision in the course of the proceedings - No need to give a decision)
   (2005/C 155/40)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-184/01: IMS Health, Inc., established in Fairfield, Connecticut (United States), represented by N. Levy, J. Temple-Lang, Solicitors, and R. O'Donoghue, Barrister, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially by A. Whelan, É. Gippini Fournier and F. Siredey-Garnier, and subsequently by A. Whelan, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by NDC Health Corp., formerly National Data Corp., established in Atlanta, Georgia (United States), (represented initially by I. Forrester QC, F. Fine, Solicitor, C. Price and A. Gagliardi, lawyers, and subsequently by C. Price, J. Bourgeois, lawyers, and F. Fine, and lastly by F. Fine), and NDC Health GmbH & Co. KG, established in Bad Camberg (Germany), (represented initially by I. Forrester QC, F. Fine and M. Powell, Solicitors, C. Price and A. Gagliardi, lawyers, and subsequently by F. Fine, C. Price and J. Bourgeois, lawyers, and lastly by F. Fine), and by AzyX Deutschland GmbH Geopharma Information Services, established in Neu-Isenburg (Germany), (represented initially by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and D. Dugois, lawyers, and subsequently by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi) — APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2002/165/EC of 3 July 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 EC (Case COMP D3/38.044 — NDC Health/IMS Health: Interim measures) (OJ 2002 L 59, p. 18), — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Šváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 10 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               There is no need to give a decision in the present action.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs, including the costs incurred in connection with the application for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2003 in Case T-307/00: C v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Orphan's pension — Fourth paragraph of Article 80 of the Staff Regulations — Parents' civil status — Equal treatment)

text:
5.4.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 83/19
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              2.     In Case T-303/00:
                                                                                —    annuls the Commission’s decision contained in the note of
                        of 30 January 2003                                           13 December 1999 relating to the applicant’s pension
                                                                                rights;
                                                                                —    dismisses the remainder of the action;
in Joined Cases T-303/00, T-304/00 and T-322/00: Manuel
Francisco Caballero Montoya and Others v Commission                             —    orders the Commission to pay the costs.
               of the European Communities ( 1)
                                                                         3.     In Case T-304/00:
(Officials — Transfer to the Community pension scheme of                        —    annuls the Commission’s decision contained in the note of
pension rights acquired under a national social security                             15 December 1999 relating to the applicant’s pension
scheme — Late transfer — Interest paid after transfer —                              rights;
Commission’s refusal to review the calculation of the pension
                                                                                —    dismisses the remainder of the action;
rights of the officials concerned and to pay them part of that
                              interest)                                         —    orders the Commission to pay the costs;
                                                                         4.     In Case T-322/00:
                          (2003/C 83/44)
                                                                                —    annuls the Commission’s decisions contained in the notes
                                                                                of 15 December 1999 relating to the applicants’ pension
            (Languages of the case: Spanish and French)                              rights;
                                                                                —    orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 372, 23 December 2000, C 355, 9 December 2000 and
                                                                              C 335, 25 November 2000.
In Joined Cases T-303/00, T-304/00 and T-322/00: Manuel
Francisco Caballero Montoya, former official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
María Jesús Sáez Acevedo, an official of the Commission of
the European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented
by J.R. Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer, Cecilio Alonso de Miguel,
residing in Bornem-Wintam (Belgium), Miguel Baena Durán,                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
residing in Torremolinos (Spain), Lucrecio Blázquez Rubia,
Juan Antonio Campos Morales, Jaime Cavanillas Junquera,                                          of 30 January 2003
Carlos Fernández Liébana, Ricardo García Ayala, Luis García
Collados, Pilar Gil Soria, Joaquín López Madruga, Martín                 in Case T-307/00: C v Commission of the European
Minguella Giné, Ramón Oviedo Bussells, Giovanni Ouzonoff                                           Communities ( 1)
Popoff, Raquel Sevilla García, Alfonso Solloa Inchaurtieta, José
Trimiño Pérez, residing in Brussels, Juan Cornet Prat, residing
                                                                         (Officials — Orphan’s pension — Fourth paragraph of
in Overijse (Belgium), José Luis Gallego LaPeña, Manuel Puerta
                                                                         Article 80 of the Staff Regulations — Parents’ civil status
García, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), Lorenzo Sánchez
                                                                                — Equal treatment)
García, residing in Algiers (Algeria), Kaethe Sommerau Ro-
schinsky, residing in Buenos Aires (Argentina), officials or
former officials of the Commission of the European Communi-                                         (2003/C 83/45)
ties, represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the                                 (Language of the case: French)
European Communities (Agents: J. Currall, J. Rivas Andrés
and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert) -application for annulment of the
Commission’s decisions contained in notes of 13 December                 In Case T-307/00: C, an official of the Commission of the
1999 relating to the applicant in Case T-303/00 and of                   European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by J.-
15 December 1999 relating to the applicants in Cases T-304/              N. Louis and V. Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in
00 and T-322/00 refusing to review the calculation of their              Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
pension rights — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),            ties (Agents: F. Anton and A. Pillette) — application for
composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,              annulment of the Commission’s decision of 25 November
Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on             1999 refusing to award an orphan’s pension to the applicant’s
30 January 2003, in which it:                                            child — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended
                                                                         Composition), composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili,
                                                                         J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio
1.    Joins Cases T-303/00, T-304/00 and T-322/00 for the                González, Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 January
      purposes of the judgment;                                          2003, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 83/20                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          5.4.2003
1.     Annuls the Commission’s decision of 25 November 1999                   Action brought on 10 January 2003 by Colette Di Marzio
       refusing to award an orphan’s pension to the applicant’s child;            against Commission of the European Communities
2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs, except those incurred
       by the Council of the European Union and those incurred by
                                                                                (Case T-14/03)
       the applicant as a consequence of the Council’s intervention;
3.     Orders the Council to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 83/47)
( 1) OJ C 335, 25 November 2000.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 10 January 2003 by Colette Di
                          of 28 January 2003                                  Marzio, residing in Ginasservis (France), represented by Geor-
                                                                              ges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
in Case T-138/01: F v Court of Auditors of the European
                            Communities (1)
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
(Officials — Reassignment — Legitimate expectations —
             Action for annulment and compensation)
                                                                              —    annul the appointing authority’s decision to make a
                             (2003/C 83/46)                                        deduction from the applicant’s salary corresponding, for
                                                                                the months of October, November and December 2001,
                                                                                to the weighting for France and the expatriation allow-
                     (Language of the case: French)                                ance;
                                                                              —    annul the decision of an unknown date depriving the
In Case T-138/01: F, an official of the Court of Auditors of the                   applicant of the fixed allowance (the ‘secretarial allow-
European Communities, residing in Luxembourg, represented                          ance’) referred to in Article 4a of Annex VII to the Staff
by P. Goergen, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-                       Regulations with effect from October 2000;
bourg, against Court of Auditors of the European Communities
(Agents: J.-M. Stenier, P. Giusta and B. Schäfer) — application,
firstly, for annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors               —    annul the decision of an unknown date depriving the
of 4 December 2000 reassigning the applicant to the trans-                         applicant of the annual travel allowance provided for in
lation service and, secondly, for compensation for the non-                        Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations for 2001;
material damage alleged by the applicant, the Court (Second
Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President, and
J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator,               —    reinstate all the applicant’s pecuniary rights, which entails
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 January 2003,                        payment of the weighting for France and the expatriation
in which it:                                                                       allowance for October, November and December 2001;
                                                                                payment of the fixed allowance (the ‘secretarial allow-
1.     Annuls the decision of the Court of Auditors of 4 December                  ance’) referred to in Article 4a of Annex VII to the Staff
       2000 reassigning the applicant to the translation service.                  Regulations for the period from 1 January 2001; payment
                                                                                of the annual travel allowance provided for in Article 8
                                                                                of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations for the whole of
2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application.
                                                                                2001; plus interest on all those amounts at the rate of
                                                                                5,25 % per annum until full payment is made;
3.     Orders the Court of Auditors to pay the costs, including those
       relating to the interlocutory proceedings in Case T-138/01 R.
                                                                              —    order the defendant to pay damages assessed, on an
                                                                                equitable basis, at EUR 10 000;
( 1) OJ C 259 of 15.9.2001.
                                                                              —    order the defendant to pay all the costs.