title: Case T-167/08: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2012 — Microsoft v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Client PC operating systems — Work group server operating systems — Refusal of the dominant undertaking to supply and authorise the use of interoperability information — Fulfilment of obligations under a decision finding an infringement and imposing behavioural measures — Periodic penalty payment)

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2012 — Microsoft v Commission
   (Case T-167/08) (1)

   (Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Client PC operating systems - Work group server operating systems - Refusal of the dominant undertaking to supply and authorise the use of interoperability information - Fulfilment of obligations under a decision finding an infringement and imposing behavioural measures - Periodic penalty payment)
   2012/C 243/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Microsoft Corp. (Redmond, Washington, United States) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer, and I. Forrester QC)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, V. Di Bucci, F. Castillo de la Torre and N. Khan, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: The Computing Technology Industry Association, Inc., (Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois, United States) (represented by: G. van Gerven and T. Franchoo, lawyers); and Association for Competitive Technology, Inc., (Washington DC, United States) (represented: initially by D. Went and H. Pearson, Solicitors and subsequently by H. Mercer QC)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Free Software Foundation Europe eV, (Hamburg, Germany) and Samba Team (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: C. Piana and T. Ballarino, lawyers), Software & Information Industry Association (Washington DC) (represented by: T. Vinje and D. Dakanalis, Solicitors, and A. Tomtsis, lawyer), European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS), (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: T. Vinje, Solicitor, and M. Dolmans, N. Dodoo and A. Ferti, lawyers), International Business Machines Corp., (Armonk, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Dolmans and T. Graf, lawyers), Red Hat Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by C.-D. Ehlermann and S. Völcker, lawyers and C. O’Daly, Solicitor), and Oracle Corp., (Redwood Shores, California, United States), (represented by: T. Vinje, Solicitor and D. Paemen, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 764 final of 27 February 2008 fixing the definitive amount of the periodic penalty payment imposed on Microsoft Corp. by Decision C(2005) 4420 final (Case COMP/C-3/37.792 — Microsoft) and, in the alternative, cancellation or reduction of the periodic penalty payment imposed on the applicant in that decision

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Fixes the amount of the periodic penalty payment imposed on Microsoft Corp. in Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2008) 764 final of 27 February 2008 fixing the definitive amount of the periodic penalty payment imposed on Microsoft Corp. by Decision C(2005) 4420 final (Case COMP/C-3/37.792 — Microsoft) at EUR 860 million;

               2.

               Orders Microsoft to bear its own costs and to pay 95 % of the costs incurred by the European Commission, excluding the costs incurred by the Commission in connection with the intervention of The Computing Technology Industry Association, Inc. and the Association for Competitive Technology, Inc., and 80 % of the costs incurred by the Free Software Foundation Europe eV and Samba Team, the Software & Information Industry Association, the European Committee for Interoperable Systems, International Business Machines Corp., Red Hat Inc. and Oracle Corp.;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear 5 % of its own costs, with the exception of the costs incurred in connection with the intervention of The Computing Technology Industry Association and the Association for Competitive Technology;

               4.

               Orders The Computing Technology Industry Association and the Association for Competitive Technology each to bear their own costs including those incurred by the Commission in connection with their intervention;

               5.

               Orders the Free Software Foundation Europe and Samba Team, the Software & Information Industry Association, the European Committee for Interoperable Systems, International Business Machines, Red Hat and Oracle to bear 20 % of their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Case T-498/12: Action brought on 16 November 2012 — Koinοpraxia Τouristiki Loutrakiou v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/58

         Action brought on 16 November 2012 — Koinοpraxia Τouristiki Loutrakiou v Commission
   (Case T-498/12)
   2013/C 26/118
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Koinοpraxia Τouristiki Loutrakiou AE, O.T.A. — Loutraki AE — Club Hotel Casino Loutraki Τouristikes kai Xenodokhiakes Epikhirisis AE (Loutraki, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission’s confirmatory decision of 18 September 2012 — Αres (2012)1082114 — by which the applicant’s request for access to certain documents was refused, and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this action the applicant seeks, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 18 September 2012, which finally refused the applicant’s confirmatory request for access to the letter of 16 May 2012 from the Greek authorities relating to the quantification of the amount of unlawful State aid to be recovered in accordance with the decision dated 24 May 2011 (1) of the European Commission’s Directorate General for Competition.
   In support of its action the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

               First, the applicant claims an infringement of the obligation on the administration to state reasons for the refusal decisions, given that in its reply, the administration confines itself to a general reference to the exceptions laid down in Regulation 1049/2001, without any further elaboration and without any real statement of reasons for the decision.

               Secondly, the applicant claims an infringement of the principle of transparency, contrary to the well known Regulation 1049/2001 and Regulation 659/1999, (2) given that the defendant is not providing to the public the widest possible access to documents by neither interpreting nor applying strictly the exceptions laid down in Regulation 1049/2001.

               Lastly, the applicant claims an infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU, and of Articles 6 and 20 of Regulation 659/1999 in breach of the applicant’s rights of defence and by extension in breach of the principle of good administration.

      (1)  Decision of the European Commission of 24 May 2011, Ε(2011) 3504 final, on State aid to certain Greek casinos No C 16/2010 (formerly ΝΝ 22/2010, formerly CP 318/2009).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty


title: Action brought on 14 August 1995 by Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-281/95)

text:
No C 299/ 8            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11 . 11 . 95
     time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the                  control of classical swine-fever, the Italian Republic has
     laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the                 failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Directive
     Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing                91 /685;
     and use of certain dangerous substances and
     preparations, the Kingdom ofBelgium has failed to fulfil          2 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     its obligations under the EC Treaty;
                                                                       (') OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .
2 . orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 , p . 21 .
                                                                       Action brought on 14 August 1995 by Hedwig
                                                                       Kuchlenz-Winter against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-281 /95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 299/ 13 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Sixth Chamber )                              An action against the Commission of the European
                      of 12 October 1995                               Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities on 14 August 1995 by Hedwig
in    Case    C-257/94 :     Commission      of the    European        Kuchlenz-Winter, residing at Domaine du Brameschhof 35 ,
              Communities v. Italian Republic (')                      L-8290 Kehlen , represented by Dieter Rogalla ,
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its- obligations —                Rechtsanwalt, Eicklohken 19 , D-45549 Sprockhovel , with
        Directive 91/685/EEC — Failure to transpose)                   an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                          ( 95 /C 299/ 12 )                            Armin Machmer, Rue Roger Barthel 1 , L-7212
                                                                       Bereldange .
                 ( Language of the case: Italian)                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           — declare that the Commission has unlawfully failed to act
          published in the European Court Reports)                          in relation to the applicant, inasmuch as, following the
                                                                            pension rights adjustment effected in her favour
                                                                            pursuant to paragraph 1587 et seq. of the Biirgerliches
In    Case    C-257/94 :     Commission      of the    European             Gesetzbuch ( German Civil Code ), the applicant should
                                                                            not have been excluded from the sickness insurance
Communities ( Agent: Eugenio de March ) v. Italian Republic
( Agents : Umberto Leanza and Maurizio Fiorilli ) —                         scheme, which the defendant prevented by unlawfully
application for a declaration that, by not adopting within                  failing to propose to the competent EC institutions the
the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                             corresponding amendments to the Staff Regulations of
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council                  Officials ,
Directive 91 /685/EEC of 11 December 1991 amending
Directive 80/217/EEC introducing Community measures                    — order the defendant to pay the costs .
for the control of classical swine-fever ( OJ 1991 L377,p . 1 )
and with Council Directive 91 /688/EEC of 11 December                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 1991 amending Directive 72/462/EEC on health and
veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine ,            The applicant considers that the Commission is under an
ovine and caprine animals and swine , fresh meat or meat               obligation to cause the Rules on Sickness Insurance for
products from third countries ( OJ 1991 L 377, p. 18 ), the            Officials to be amended so as to provide that the divorced
 Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the       spouse of an official who is entitled , in consequence of a
 EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of C. N.            pension rights adjustment effected pursuant to paragraph
 Kakouris, President of the Chamber, E. A. Schockweiler,                1587 et seq . of the German Civil Code , to part of the
 P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm                        retirement pension of his or her former spouse should
 ( Rapporteur ), Judges; M. B. Elmer , Advocate-General ;              continue to enjoy the benefit of sickness insurance . She
 R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 October                maintains in particular that, in the absence of such a rule, she
 1995 , in which it:                                                    is obliged for practical purposes to remain in Luxembourg,
                                                                        since it is only there — by contrast with Germany — that she
                                                                        may voluntarily become a member of a statutory sickness
 1 . declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed               insurance scheme ; she regards this as constituting a breach
      period the laws, regulations and administrative                   of her right to freedom of movement .
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
      91 /685/EEC of 1 1 December 1991 amending Directive
      80/217/EEC introducing Community measures for the


title: Case C-208/99: Action brought on 1 June 1999 by the Portuguese Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.8.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 226/21
3. Must the fees paid for such services be calculated in the                    — C(1999)544, which withdraws the assistance granted
     light of the cost involved in providing the service?                            to Floreurop - Productos Florestais Lda by Commission
                                                                                Decision C(96)2211 of 13 September 1996 concern-
4. Are such costs those incurred in taking the action and in                         ing the grant of an EAGGF, Guarantee Section, contri-
     maintaining the facilities necessary for taking it?                             bution under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88
                                                                                for project No 94.PT.06.015, entitled ‘Demonstration
                                                                                Project to accelerate agricultural diversification in
5. May the criterion of the economic benefit which the user                          Madeira by introducing products intended for the
     obtains from the action taken be applied in calculating the                     uharmaceutical industry (tea tree oil)’
     amount payable for such action?
                                                                                to the extent to which they are addressed to the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic;
(1) OJ, English Special Edition, 1969 (II), p. 412.
                                                                            — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                            Pleas and principal arguments
                                                                            — Breach of the obligation to state reasons (Article 253 EC);
                                                                            — Infringement of Article 23(1) third indent and Article 24
Action brought on 1 June 1999 by the Portuguese                                 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (2) in that, on a correct
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-                            interpretation and application of those provisions to the
                              munities                                          projects in question, only the beneficiary undertakings
                                                                                should be responsible for repaying the amounts received:
                                                                                the assistance in question was granted and controlled
                          (Case C-208/99)                                       directly and solely by the European Commission without
                                                                                any involvement of the national management and moni-
                                                                                toring bodies. Nor can the fact that the national authorities
                          (1999/C 226/34)                                       simply accompanied the Commission inspectors be regard-
                                                                                ed as participation in the control process. The Member
                                                                                State cannot be held responsible for irregularities arising
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       in the implementation of such projects nor can it be the
ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 1 June 1999                     addressee of decisions requiring the recovery of funds used
by the Portuguese Republic, represented by Luı́s Fernandes,                     improperly.
Angelo Seiça Neves and Paula Fragão, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Portuguese
Embassy, 33 Allée Scheffer, Luxembourg.                                     (1) OJ L 374 of 31.12.1988, p. 25.
                                                                            (2) OJ L 394 of 31.12.1988, p. 14.
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
— Uphold this application and therefore annul the following
     decisions:
     — C(1999)543, which withdraws the assistance granted
         to Belgravia Lda b, Commission Decision C(93)3403
         of 26 November 1993 concerning the grant of an
         EAGGF, Guarantee Section, contribution under                       Action brought on 4 June 1999 by the Commission of the
         Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 (1) for project                    European Communities against the Italian Republic
         No 93.PT.06.023, entitled ‘Demonstration Project for
         introduction of the cultivation of sea kale’,                                              (Case C-212/99)
     — C(1999)545, which withdraws the assistance granted                                           (1999/C 226/35)
         to Ordinal-Gestão de Investimentos Lda by Com-
         mission Decision C(93)1606 of 21 June 1993 concern-
         ing the grant of an EAGGF, Guarantee Section, contri-              An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
         bution under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 June 1999
         for project No 93.PT.06.002, entitled ‘Pilot and Dem-              by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
         onstration Project for turning to account three Mediter-           by Pieter Jan Kuijper and Enrico Traversa, Legal Advisers acting
         ranean plants (fennel, balm and parsley) through the               as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
         extraction of essential oils for the agro-food industry’,          office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-258/10: Action brought on 10 June 2010 — France Télécom v Commission

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/40

         Action brought on 10 June 2010 — France Télécom v Commission
   (Case T-258/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/74
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: France Télécom (Paris, France) (represented by: M. van der Woude and D. Gillet, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present action admissible;

               —

               Annul the decision; and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7426 final of 30 September 2009, (1) declaring that the compensation for public service charges in the amount of EUR 59 million, granted by the French authorities to a group of undertakings for the establishment and operation of a very high-speed broadband electronic communications network (project THD 92) in the French Hauts-de-Seine department, does not constitute State aid.
   In support of its action, the applicant raises two pleas in law, alleging:

               —

               an infringement of the notion of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, since the Commission committed an error of law in applying the four ‘Altmark’ criteria in the present case, in so far as:

                           —

                           Project THD92 does not pursue an objective of general economic interest, but a competitive one on the part of Hauts-de-Seine department as an international business centre;

                           —

                           Project THD92 is taking place in a ‘black area’ and does not respond to a market failure;

                           —

                           the compensation in the amount of EUR 59 million is disproportionate and was granted on the basis of previously unknown selection criteria; and

               —

               an infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU since the Commission infringed the applicant's procedural rights by not initiating the formal investigation procedure, thus depriving the applicant of the possibility of voicing its point of view as an interested third party.

      (1)  State Aid N 331/2008 — France.


title: Case C-394/10: Action brought on 4 August 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/17

         Action brought on 4 August 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-394/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/26
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Troosters and J. Sénéchal, Agents, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (1) or, in any event, by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2006/24/EC expired on 15 September 2007. As at the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not notified the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ L 105, p. 54.


title: Case T-133/05: Action brought on 17 March 2005 by Gérard Meric against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/39

         Action brought on 17 March 2005 by Gérard Meric against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-133/05)
   (2005/C 143/74)
   Language in which the application was submitted: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 March 2005 by Gérard Meric, residing in Paris (France), represented by Pascal Murzeau, lawyer.
   ARBORA & AUSONIA, S.L. was also a party to the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 January 2005 and, accordingly;

               —

               reject the opposition entered by the company ARBORA & AUSONIA, S.L. to registration of the trade mark ‘PAM-PIM'S BABY-PROP’;

               —

               order the latter to pay all the costs incurred by the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant.

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Word mark ‘PAM-PIM'S BABY-PROP’ in respect of goods in Class 16 (Babies' napkin-pants of paper and cellulose (disposable)).

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               ARBORA & AUSONIA, S.L.

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               National word and figurative marks 'PAM-PAM' in respect of goods in Classes 5, 16 and 25 (any ready-made clothing, in particular disposable napkin-pants, footwear, sanitary napkin-pants, sanitary towels … — Spanish mark Nos 855 391, 1 146 300 and 1 153 492).

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               The opposition is allowed on the basis of the national figurative mark 'PAM-PAM' in respect of goods in Class 16 (pants and napkin-pants of paper and cellulose — Spanish mark No 1 146 300).

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the applicant's appeal

               Pleas in law:

               For the average Spanish consumer, there is no likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 between the conflicting marks because there is no similarity either between the mark applied for and the earlier marks, or between the goods designated by the mark applied for and the earlier marks.


title: Case C-144/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht München, by judgment of that court of 26 February 2004 in the case of Werner Mangold against Rüdiger Helm

text:
               29.5.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/1

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht München, by judgment of that court of 26 February 2004 in the case of Werner Mangold against Rüdiger Helm
   (Case C-144/04)
   (2004/C 146/01)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by the Arbeitsgericht München, of 26 February 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 17 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Werner Mangold against Rüdiger Helm on the following questions:
   1(a)

               Is Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement (Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP) to be interpreted as prohibiting, in the course of the implementation of that agreement in national law, any reduced protection as a result of a reduction in the age limit from 60 to 58?

               1(b)

               Is Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement (Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which – like the provision at issue in this case – does not contain any of the three restrictions set out in paragraph 1 of that clause?

               2.

               Is Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (2) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which – like under the provision at issue in this case – fixed-term employment contracts may be concluded, without any objective reason, with workers aged 52 and over, thus running counter to the principle of justification on objective grounds?

               3.

               If one of those three questions is answered in the affirmative:

               Must the national court refuse to apply the provision of national law which conflicts with Community law and, in that case, does the general principle laid down in national law apply, under which fixed terms of employment are permissible only if they are justified on an objective ground?

      (1)  OJ L 175, p. 43.

      (2)  OJ L 303, p. 16.


title: Case C-666/16 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 July 2017 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH v European Chemicals Agency (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Making available on the market and use of biocidal products — Article 95 — European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) — Publication of a list of active substances — Inclusion of a company as a supplier of an active substance)

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/9

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 July 2017 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH v European Chemicals Agency
   (Case C-666/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Making available on the market and use of biocidal products - Article 95 - European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) - Publication of a list of active substances - Inclusion of a company as a supplier of an active substance))
   (2017/C 300/12)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (represented by: M. Grunchard and K. Van Maldegem, avocats, and P. Sellar, Advocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä and C. Buchanan, Agents, and P. Oliver, Barrister)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH and Ecolab Deutschland GmbH shall pay the costs.

               3.

               Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), BASF SE and Oxea GmbH shall each bear their own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.


title: Case C-194/14 P: Appeal brought on 17 April 2014 by AC-Treuhand AG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 February 2014 in Case T-27/10 AC-Treuhand AG v European Commission

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/20

         Appeal brought on 17 April 2014 by AC-Treuhand AG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 February 2014 in Case T-27/10 AC-Treuhand AG v European Commission
   (Case C-194/14 P)
   2014/C 184/24
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: AC-Treuhand AG (represented by: C. Steinle and I. Bodenstein, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               2.

               annul Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat stabilisers), in so far as it affects the appellant.
               in the alternative, reduce the fines imposed on the appellant by Article 2(17) and (38) of that decision;

               3.

               in the alternative to the second head of claim, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice as to points of law;

               4.

               in any event, order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

               The appeal is against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 February 2014 in Case T-27/10. In the judgment, the General Court dismissed the appellant’s action of 27 January 2010 brought against Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat stabilisers).

               2.

               The appellant raises four grounds of appeal:

               3.

               By the first ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law by extensively interpreting Article 81 EC (now Article 101 TFEU) in breach of the principle of legality (nullem crimen sine lege and nulla poena sine lege) enshrined in Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter of Fundamental Rights, ‘the Charter’) in such a way that the level of certainty and foreseeability of the facts of Article 81 EC required in accordance with the rule of law is no longer fulfilled in the present case. The General Court thus infringed Article 81 EC and Article 49(1) of the Charter.

               4.

               By the second ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that, in rejecting the fourth plea, the General Court erred in law inasmuch as it disregarded the limitations imposed on the Commission’s discretion to set fines in the present case by the principle of legality (Article 49(1) of the Charter) and the principle of equal treatment.

               5.

               By the third ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that the General Court infringed Article 23(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1/2003 and the Guidelines on the method of setting fines. The appellant submitted that, on the basis of the methods outlined in the 2006 guidelines, its fines were to be determined on the basis of the fee received for the performance of services in connection with the infringements and should not have been set at a flat rate. The General Court wrongly rejected that submission and considered the amount of the fines to be reasonable.

               6.

               By the fourth ground of appeal, the applicant alleges that the General Court infringed Article 261 TFEU, Article 23(3) and Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003 due to the insufficient and legally erroneous exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction. In addition, in the context of the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, the General Court itself infringed the principle of legality (Article 49(1) of the Charter), the principle of equal treatment and the principle of proportionality.


title: Case T-567/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Mad Catz Interactive (Representation of a black square with four white lines) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark representing a black square with four white lines — Earlier EU figurative mark representing three claws positioned vertically — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Mad Catz Interactive (Representation of a black square with four white lines)
   (Case T-567/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark representing a black square with four white lines - Earlier EU figurative mark representing three claws positioned vertically - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 314/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mad Catz Interactive, Inc. (San Diego, California, United States)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2015 (Case R 2368/2014-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Mad Catz Interactive.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.


title: Case C-45/16 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis v Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — ‘Multi-level patient-specific artery and artherogenesis model for outcome prediction, decision support treatment, and virtual hand-on training (ARTreat) contract’, concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Termination of that contract due to irregularities committed in the performance of another contract concluded with the European Commission — Good faith — Legitimate expectation the contract would not be terminated)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/23

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis v Commission
   (Case C-45/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - ‘Multi-level patient-specific artery and artherogenesis model for outcome prediction, decision support treatment, and virtual hand-on training (ARTreat) contract’, concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Termination of that contract due to irregularities committed in the performance of another contract concluded with the European Commission - Good faith - Legitimate expectation the contract would not be terminated))
   (2017/C 104/33)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis (represented by: K. Damis, dikigoros)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 14.03.2016.


title: Case C-364/09 P: Appeal brought on 14 September 2009 by Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2009 in Case T-226/08 Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); the other party to the proceedings being: Schwarzbräu GmbH

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/48

         Appeal brought on 14 September 2009 by Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2009 in Case T-226/08 Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); the other party to the proceedings being: Schwarzbräu GmbH
   (Case C-364/09 P)
   2009/C 267/81
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH (represented by: P. Wadenbach, Rechtsanwalt)
   Other parties to the proceedings:

               —

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

               —

               Schwarzbräu GmbH

      Form of order sought

               1.

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 8 July 2009 in Case T-226/08;

               2.

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 April 2008 (Case R 1124/2004-4);

               3.

               Completely delete the Community trade mark No 505503 ‘ALASKA’ owing to the existence of absolute grounds for refusal;

               4.

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         In the alternative to the form of order sought in point 3 above, the appellant requests the Court to:

               —

               Annul Community trade mark No 505503 ‘ALASKA’ at least in respect of the following goods: ‘mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks in Class 32’.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance which dismissed the appellant’s action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 8 April 2008. By that decision the Board of Appeal rejected the appellant’s application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community word mark ‘ALASKA’ in respect of all the goods covered by the registration (mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks; fruit drinks and fruit juices; syrups and other preparations for making beverages).
   The dispute between the parties centres on the question whether an absolute ground for refusal in the form of the requirement to maintain the availability of an indication of geographic origin exists.
   By its appeal the appellant complains that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, in particular with regard to the principles developed by the case-law.
   According to the wording of the abovementioned provision of Regulation No 40/94, for registration of a Community trade mark to be excluded it suffices if the mark consists exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the geographical origin of the goods covered by the application. It follows from that provision that geographic designations which may be used by undertakings, must also be kept available for those undertakings as indications of geographic origin with regard to the group of goods concerned. The application of the abovementioned provision of Regulation No 40/94 does not require that there be a real, current or serious requirement to keep the sign available.
   Had the Court of First Instance interpreted Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 and the principles developed by the case-law correctly for the purposes of the present case, it would have had to find that Alaska was the largest source of drinking water in the United States, that the relevant public associated Alaska with a natural surplus of pure water in its most diverse forms, that an economically significant amount of mineral water was produced in Alaska and that it was already distributed in the Community, meaning that further marketing was a serious possibility. It was accordingly clear that the designation ‘ALASKA’ could in future be used by competitors as an indication of geographic origin.
   The Court of First Instance instead interpreted Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 and the principles of the case-law incorrectly by imposing, while carrying out a test of viability, that is to say whether the distribution of mineral water from Alaska in the Community was economically feasible or not (having regard to competition on the market, transport costs), additional requirements which went beyond those principles. Those broader requirements were excessive in the light of the objectives of Article 7(1)(c), its wording and in particular in the light of the principles developed in the case-law, and led to an excessively broad interpretation which was not in conformity with the purpose of the Community law provision.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 30 April 1998 in Joined Cases C-37/96 and C-38/96 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Instance, Paris): Sodiprem SARL and Others (C-37/96) and Roger Albert SA (C-38/96) v. Direction Générale des Douanes (Dock dues (octroi de mer) - Fiscal rules applicable to the French overseas departments - Decision 89/688/EEC - Charges having an effect equivalent to a customs duty - Internal taxation)

text:
4.7.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 209/7
(Court of Cassation) for a preliminary ruling in the pro-            D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch,
ceedings pending before that court between Caisse Natio-             P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate
nale d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs SalarieÂs               General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,
(CNAVTS) and EÂvelyne Thibault Ð on the interpretation               for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 April 1998,
of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on                in which it has ruled:
the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
men and women as regards access to employment,                       On a proper construction, Council Decision 89/688/EEC
vocational training and promotion, and working                       of 22 December 1989 concerning the dock dues in the
conditions (OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40) Ð the Court                 French overseas departments precludes exemptions of a
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President                general or systematic order, which would thus amount to
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray            the reintroduction of a charge having an effect equivalent
(Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo                   to that of a customs duty. That decision does, however,
Colomer, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                      authorise exemptions which are necessary, proportionate
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a              and precisely determined and which respect the strict
judgment on 30 April 1998, in which it has ruled:                    conditions laid down in Article 2(3) thereof, interpreted in
                                                                     the light of the limits laid down in Article 226 of the EC
Articles 2(3) and 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of            Treaty.
9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
equal treatment for men and women as regards access to               (1) OJ C 95 of 30.3.1996.
employment, vocational training and promotion, and
working conditions preclude national rules which deprive
a woman of the right to an assessment of her performance
and, consequently, to the possibility of qualifying for
promotion because she was absent from the undertaking
on account of maternity leave.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 189 of 22.7.1995.
                                                                                of 30 April 1998
                                                                     in Joined Cases C-377/96 to C-384/96: (references for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling from the Belgian Hof van Cassatie/
                                                                     Cour de Cassation): August De Vriendt v. Rijksdienst
                                                                     voor Pensioenen, Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen v. ReneÂ van
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     Looveren and Others (1)
                       of 30 April 1998                              (Directive 79/7/EEC Ð Equal treatment Ð Old-age and
                                                                     retirement pensions Ð Method of calculation Ð
in Joined Cases C-37/96 and C-38/96 (references for a                                       Pensionable age)
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Instance, Paris):
Sodiprem SARL and Others (C-37/96) and Roger Albert                                          (98/C 209/14)
     SA (C-38/96) v. Direction GeÂneÂrale des Douanes (1)
(Dock dues (octroi de mer) Ð Fiscal rules applicable to                       (Language of the case: Dutch and French)
the French overseas departments Ð Decision 89/688/EEC
Ð Charges having an effect equivalent to a customs duty                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                     Ð Internal taxation)                                     published in the European Court Reports)
                        (98/C 209/13)
                                                                     In Joined Cases C-377/96 to C-384/96: references to the
               (Language of the case: French)                        Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Belgian
                                                                     Hof van Cassatie/Cour de Cassation for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       between August De Vriendt and Rijksdienst voor Pensioe-
         published in the European Court Reports)                    nen (C-377/96), Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen and ReneÂ van
                                                                     Looveren (C-378/96), Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen and
                                                                     Julien Grare (C-379/96), Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen and
In Joined Cases C-37/96 and C-38/96: references to the               Karel Boeykens (C-380/96), Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribu-             and Frans Serneels (C-381/96), Office National des Pen-
nal d'Instance (District Court), Paris, for a preliminary            sions (ONP) and Fredy Parotte (C-382/96), Office Natio-
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                  nal des Pensions (ONP) and Camille Delbrouck (C-383/
between Sodiprem SARL and Others (C-37/96) and Roger                 96) and Office National des Pensions (ONP) and Henri
Albert SA (C-38/96) and Direction GeÂneÂrale des Douanes             Props (C-384/96) Ð on the interpretation of Article 7 of
Ð on the interpretation of Articles 9, 12 and 95 of the EC           Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
Treaty Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez                     progressive implementation of the principle of equal
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M.                    treatment for men and women in matters of social security
Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C.              (OJ L 6 of 10.1.1979, p. 24) Ð the Court (Sixth
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,                 Chamber), composed of H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),


title: Case T-359/02: Action brought on 3 December 2002 by Chum Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
25.1.2003             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 19/43
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          European Communities on 3 December 2002 by Chum
                                                                         Limited, Toronto (Canada), represented by Michael Gilbert,
                                                                         Solicitor. A further party to the proceedings before the Board
Applicant for the Com-        Creative Technology Limited.
                                                                         of Appeal was Star TV AG, Schlieren (Switzerland).
munity trade mark:
The Community trade           the community trade mark appli-
mark concerned:               cation No 673327 for the word              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                              mark ‘PC WORKS’ for goods in
                              class 9 (apparatus for recording,
                                                                         —     set aside the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
                              transmitting and reproducing                     OHIM, dated 17th September, 2002 in Appeal No.
                              sound or images, loudspeakers, a.
                                                                               R1140/2000-2,
                              o.).
Proprietor of the right to    Mr José Vila Ortiz.                        —     order that the Community Trade Mark application No.
the trade mark or sign                                                         890145 be registered for the services in Class 38 and
asserted by way of oppo-                                                       Class 41,
sition in the opposition
proceedings:                                                             —     order that costs be awarded to the Applicant in this
                                                                               Appeal, in Appeal No. R1140/2000-2 and in Opposition
Trade mark or sign            the Spanish figurative mark ‘W                   No. 184525.
asserted by way of oppo-      WORK PRO’, registered under
sition in the opposition      No 1925320, in relation to goods
proceedings:                  in class 9 (sound electronical
                              equipments, loudspeakers, sound
                              reproducing apparatus, a. o.).             Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the Community trade
sition Division:              mark application.                          Applicant for the Com-        Chum Limited
                                                                         munity Trade-mark:
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal brought
Appeal:                       by Creative Technology Limited.
                                                                         The Community trade-          Word mark ‘STAR TV’ — appli-
Grounds of claim:             the applicant submits that undue           mark concerned:               cation No 890145, relating to
                              weight was given to the common                                           goods in classes 38 and 41.
                              element ‘Work’ in both marks
                              and insufficient consideration was         Proprietor of the right to    Star TV AG
                              given to the fact that the goods in        the trade mark or sign
                              question are only bought after             asserted by way of oppo-
                              careful examination of the fea-            sition in the opposition
                              tures of the goods, thus reducing          proceedings:
                              the likelihood of confusion
                              amongst the relevant public.               Trade-mark or sign            Figurative trade-mark composed
                                                                         asserted by way of oppo-      of the words ‘STAR TV’ superpos-
                                                                         sition in the opposition      ing a big black and white star,
                                                                         procedings:                   accompanied by 3 smaller stars
                                                                                and a small moon (international
                                                                                registration No 638769, covering
                                                                                Austria, Germany, the Benelux,
                                                                                France and Italy), relating to goods
Action brought on 3 December 2002 by Chum Limited
                                                                                in classes 38 and 41.
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                             Market
                                                                         Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the Community Tra-
                                                                         sition Division:              de-mark.
                        (Case T-359/02)
                                                                         Decision of the Board of      Refusal of the Appeal.
                         (2003/C 19/80)                                  Appeal:
                  (Language of the case: English)                        Grounds of the claim:         Incorrect application of Article
                                                                                8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                94.
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case C-16/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 13 January 2017 — TGE Gas Engineering GmbH — Sucursal em Portugal v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/34

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 13 January 2017 — TGE Gas Engineering GmbH — Sucursal em Portugal v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
   (Case C-16/17)
   (2017/C 104/49)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TGE Gas Engineering GmbH — Sucursal em Portugal

      Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

      Questions referred

   Must Articles 44, 45, 132(1)(f), 167, 168, 169, 178, 179 and 192a, 193, 194 and 196 of the VAT Directive (Directive 2006/112), (1) Articles 10 and 11 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 (2) and the principle of neutrality be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the Portuguese tax authorities from refusing the right to deduction of VAT by a branch of a German company, in circumstances where:

               —

               the German company obtained a tax identification number in Portugal to carry out an isolated act, namely ‘acquisition of shares’, corresponding to a non-resident entity without a permanent establishment;

               —

               subsequently, the branch of that German company was registered in Portugal and was assigned its own tax number, as a permanent establishment of that company;

               —

               later, the German company, using the first identification number, entered into a contract with another company to establish an economic interest group (ACE) to carry out a works contract in Portugal;

               —

               subsequently, the branch, using its own tax number, entered into a subcontract with the ACE, setting out the reciprocal services between the branch and the ACE and agreeing that the latter would invoice the subcontractors, in the agreed proportions, for the costs which it incurred;

               —

               the ACE indicated the branch’s tax identification number in the debit notes it issued to invoice costs to that branch, and charged VAT;

               —

               the branch deducted the VAT charged in the debit notes;

               —

               the transactions of the ACE (by way of subcontracting) consist of the transactions of the branch and of the other company forming part of the ACE, these latter having invoiced to the ACE the entire revenue that the ACE invoiced to the developer?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

      OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax

      OJ 2011 L 77, p. 1.


C 163/36              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10.6.2000
Removal from the register of Case T-518/97 to T-564/97 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case T-186/99 (1)
                        (2000/C 163/73)                                                           (2000/C 163/76)
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Third
Chamber, of the Court of First Instance of the European                  By order of 21 March 2000, the President of the Second
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-518/97 to T-564/97: Fernando Eugénio de Abreu and                 Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of                 Case T-186/99: Saehan Media Ireland Limited v Commission
the European Communities.                                                of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.                                               (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
Removal from the register of Case T-565/97 to T-595/97 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-356/99 (1)
                        (2000/C 163/74)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/77)
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)
By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Third                                    (Language of the case: English)
Chamber, of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                 By order of 28 March 2000, the President of the First Chamber
Case T-565/97 to T-595/97: João Luı́s de Sousa de Abreu and             of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of                 has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-356/99:
the European Communities.                                                Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder v Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
Removal from the register of Case T-615/97 to T-618/97 (1)
                        (2000/C 163/75)                                          Removal from the register of Case T-1/00 (1)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                                 (2000/C 163/78)
By order of 16 December 1999, the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                                      (Language of the case: German)
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-615/97 to T-618/97: Albery Frères and Others v                    By order of 31 March 2000, the President of the First Chamber
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                      of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
European Communities.                                                    has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-1/00:
                                                                         Gustav Hölzl and Others v Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.


title: Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 — Regione autonoma della Sardegna and others v Commission (State aids — Aid in favour of the hotel industry in the Region of Sardinia — Decision declaring the aid partly compatible and partly incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — New aid — Obligation to state reasons — Protection of legitimate expectations — Incentive effect — De minimis rule)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 — Regione autonoma della Sardegna and others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08) (1)

   (State aids - Aid in favour of the hotel industry in the Region of Sardinia - Decision declaring the aid partly compatible and partly incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - New aid - Obligation to state reasons - Protection of legitimate expectations - Incentive effect - De minimis rule)
   2011/C 319/24
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Regione autonoma della Sardegna (Italy) (represented by: A. Fantozzi, P. Carrozza and G. Mameli, lawyers) (Case T-394/08); SF Turistico Immobiliare Srl (Orosei, Italy) (represented by: L. Marcialis, lawyer) (T-408/08); Timsas Srl (Arezzo, Italy) (represented by: D. Dodaro, S. Pinna and S. Cianciullo, lawyers) (T-453/08); and Grand Hotel Abi D’Oru SpA (Olbia) (represented by: D. Dodaro, S. Cianciullo, and R. Masuri, lawyers) (T-454/08)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: in Cases T-394/08 and T-454/08 E. Righini, D. Grespan and C. Urraca Caviedes; in Case T-408/08 E. Righini and D. Grespan; and in Case T-453/08 D. Grespan and C. Urraca Caviedes, agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant in Case T-394/08: Selene di Alessandra Cannas Sas (Cagliari, Italy); HGA Srl (Golfo Aranci, Italy); Gimar Srl (Sassari, Italy); Coghene Costruzioni Srl (Alghero, Italy); Camping Pini e Mare di Cogoni Franco & C. Sas (Quartu Sant’Elena, Italy); Immobiliare 92 Srl (Arzachena, Italy); Gardena Srl (Santa Teresa di Gallura, Italy); Hotel Stella 2000 Srl (Olbia, Italy); Vadis Srl (Valledoria, Italy); Macpep Srl (Sorso, Italy); San Marco SRl, (Alghero); Due Lune SpA (Milan, Italy); Nicos Residence Srl (Santa Teresa di Gallura); Rosa Murgese (Iglesias, Italy); Mavi Srl (Arzachena); Hotel Mistral di Bruno Madeddu & C. Sas (Alghero); L’Esagono di Mario Azara & C. Snc (San Teodoro, Italy); Le Buganville di Cogoni Giuseppe & C. Snc (Villasimius, Italy); and Le Dune di Stefanelli Vincenzo & C. Snc (Arbus, Italy) (represented by: G. Dore, F. Cuilli and A. Vinci, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/854/EC of 2 July 2008 on a State aid scheme (C 1/04 (ex NN 158/03 and CP 15/2003)): Misuse of aid measure N 272/98, Regional Act No 9 of 1998 (OJ 2008 L 302, p. 9), by which the Regione autonoma della Sardegna gave grants towards initial investment in the hotel industry in Sardinia.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08 for the purposes of judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions;

               3.

               Orders the applicants to pay the Commission’s costs, excluding those incurred by it as a result of its intervention, and their own costs;

               4.

               Orders the interveners in Case T-394/08 to bear the Commission’s costs relating to the intervention and their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Joined Cases C-523/11 and C-585/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover, Verwaltungsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Laurence Prinz v Region Hannover (C-523/11), and Philipp Seeberger v Studentenwerk Heidelberg (C-585/11) (Citizenship of the Union — Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU — Right of freedom of movement and residence — Education or training grant awarded to nationals of a Member State in order to pursue their studies in another Member State — Requirement of residence in the home Member State for at least three years prior to the commencement of studies)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover, Verwaltungsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Laurence Prinz v Region Hannover (C-523/11), and Philipp Seeberger v Studentenwerk Heidelberg (C-585/11)
   (Joined Cases C-523/11 and C-585/11) (1)

   (Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU - Right of freedom of movement and residence - Education or training grant awarded to nationals of a Member State in order to pursue their studies in another Member State - Requirement of residence in the home Member State for at least three years prior to the commencement of studies)
   2013/C 260/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Hannover, Verwaltungsgericht Karlsruhe

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Laurence Prinz (C-523/11), Philipp Seeberger (C-585/11)

      Defendants: Region Hannover (C-523/11), and Studentenwerk Heidelberg (C-585/11)

      Re:

   Requests for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Hannover — Interpretation of Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU — Receipt of an education or training grant (‘Ausbildungsförderung’) — National rules limiting receipt of that grant to one year for citizens who pursue their studies abroad and reside for less than three years prior to the commencement of their studies in a national territory

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude legislation of a Member State which makes the award of an education grant for studies in another Member State for a period of more than one year subject to a sole condition, such as that laid down in Paragraph 16(3) of the Federal Law on assistance for education and training [Bundesgesetz über individuelle Förderung der Ausbildung (Bundesausbildungsförderungsgesetz)], as amended on 1 January 2008, by the twenty-second law amending the Federal Law on assistance for education and training, requiring the applicant to have had a permanent residence, within the meaning of that law, in national territory for at least three years before commencing those studies.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.

      OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.


title: Case C-633/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten (Denmark) lodged on 7 December 2016 — Ernst & Young P/S v Konkurrencerådet

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten (Denmark) lodged on 7 December 2016 — Ernst & Young P/S v Konkurrencerådet
   (Case C-633/16)
   (2017/C 046/19)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Sø- og Handelsretten

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ernst & Young P/S

      Defendant: Konkurrencerådet

      Questions referred

               1.

               What criteria are to be applied in assessing whether the conduct or actions of an undertaking are covered by the prohibition in Article 7(1) of Council Regulation No 139/2004 (1) on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the prohibition of advance implementation), and does implementing action within the meaning of Article 7(1) presuppose that the action, wholly or in part, factually or legally, forms part of the actual change of control or merging of the continuing activities of the participating undertakings which — provided the quantitative thresholds are met — gives rise to the obligation of notification?

               2.

               Can the termination of a cooperation agreement, as in the present case, which is announced under circumstances corresponding to those described in the order for reference constitute an implementing action covered by the prohibition in Article 7(1) of Council Regulation No 139/2004, and what criteria are then to be applied in making a decision?

               3.

               Does it make any difference in answering Question 2 whether the termination has actually given rise to market effects relevant to competition law?

               4.

               If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, clarification is requested as to what criteria and what degree of probability should be applied in deciding in the particular case whether the termination has given rise to such market effects, including the significance of the possibility that those effects could be attributed to other causes.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).


title: Case T-10/02: Action brought on 18 January 2002 by Marie-Claude Girardot against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 68/20                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.3.2002
national B.V., established in Amsterdam, Coöperatieve Centrale         Action brought on 18 January 2002 by Marie-Claude
Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank Nederland), estab-            Girardot against Commission of the European Com-
lished in Amsterdam, DSM Finance B.V., established in Heerlen                                      munities
(Netherlands), DTG Finance B.V., established in The Hague,
Heineken N.V., established in Amsterdam, ING Verzekeringen
N.V., established in The Hague, Koninklijke Ahold N.V.,                                         (Case T-10/02)
established in Zaandam (Netherlands), Landis Group Inter-
national B.V., established in Utrecht (Netherlands), Unilever                                   (2002/C 68/35)
N.V., established in Rotterdam (Netherlands), and Wolters
Kluwer N.V., established in Amsterdam, all represented by
E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and S.B. Noë, lawyers.                                            (Language of the case: French)
The applicants claim that the Court should:                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities on 18 January 2002 by Marie-Claude
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 11 July 2001 to               Girardot, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
      initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC in
                                                                       avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      respect of aid measure C 51/2001 (ex NN 48/2000) —
      International financing activities;
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                       —     annul the decision of the Commission of 13 March
                                                                             2001 rejecting the applicant’s candidature in respect of
                                                                             COM/R/502310/2001, COM/R/502253/2001, COM/R/
                                                                             508026/2001, COM/R/502529/2001, COM/R/506004/
                                                                             2001, COM/R/502059/2001 and COM/R/502105/2001,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                             published in the Spécial Recherche vacancy notice of
                                                                             12 February 2001;
By the contested decision, the Commission initiated an investi-        —     annul the decision of the Commission of 15 March
gation procedure concerning new State aid in respect of the                  2001 rejecting the applicant’s candidature in respect of
Netherlands fiscal legislation relating to international group               COM/2001/CCR16/R, published in the Spécial CCR
financing activities (‘the CFA regime’). In their application in             vacancy notice of 9 February 2001;
the present proceedings, the applicants deny that any new
State aid is involved.                                                 —     annul the appointments made to the abovementioned
                                                                             posts;
                                                                       —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The applicants plead infringement of Article 88 of the EC
Treaty and of Regulation No 659/1999, inasmuch as the
Commission should have initiated the procedure in relation to
existing aid rather than that in respect of new aid. According
to the applicants, it was not until after the CFA regime was           Pleas in law and main arguments
introduced in 1997 that the Commission proceeded to regard
such measures as constituting aid. As evidence of this, the
applicants refer to the Commission’s observations of 1984 and          According to the applicant, the Commission added a new
1987 in relation to notification of a similar system by the            condition for the admission of candidates to posts, refusing
Belgian Government, and also to the fact that the Belgian              her candidature on the ground that the post is only available
system is currently being investigated in accordance with the          to staff covered by the Staff Regulations. Since that condition
procedure for existing aid.                                            does not appear in the vacancy notices, the applicant submits
                                                                       that it infringes the terms of those notices and alleges
                                                                       infringement of Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff Regulations
                                                                       inasmuch as the Commission has not organised a competition
The applicants further claim that the contested decision               for those posts. The applicant also alleges manifest error of
violates the principle of equality, the general duty of care and       assessment and infringement of Article 27 of the Staff
the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.            Regulations in that the Commission did not take account of
Moreover, no sufficient statement of reasons has been given            the applicant’s qualifications. Finally, the applicant claims that
for the classification of the measure as new State aid.                a statement of reasons has not been provided for the contested
                                                                       decisions.


title: Case C-572/08: Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/14

         Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-572/08)
   (2009/C 55/22)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Aresu and W. Mölls, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Forms of order sought

               —

               A declaration that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 90 EC, by conferring a tax concession on regenerated lubricating oil produced from used oil collected in Italy, but refusing to confer the same concession on regenerated lubricating oil produced from used oil collected in other Member States (in accordance with Circular 24/D of 5 May 2004 of the Italian Revenue Authority and Article 1(116) of Law No 266 of 23 December 2005, as interpreted by Article 62 of the Testo unico delle disposizioni legislative concernenti le imposte sulla produzione e sui consumi e relative sanzioni penali e amministrative (Consolidated Text of Legislative Provisions relating to duties on production and consumption and related criminal and administrative penalties) approved by Decree No 504 of the President of the Republic of 26 October 1995);

               —

               An order that the Italian Republic is to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission complains that the Italian authorities are operating a system of tax concessions on regenerated lubricating oil which favours national production to the detriment of that from other Member States, in clear breach of the principle of non-discrimination, which in the field of taxation is laid down in Article 90 EC.
   That system reproduces a previous regime of tax concessions already condemned by the Court of Justice in 1980, and the Italian Republic's arguments in favour of the new system cannot justify such a choice.


C 45/16                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.2.2001
Action brought on 22 December 2000 by the Commission                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de
of the European Communities against the French Republic                   Cassation Française, Chambre Commerciale, Financière et
                                                                          Économique, by judgment of that court of 19 December
                                                                          2000 in the case of Ravil S.à r.l. against Bellon Import
                                                                                S.à r.l. and Biraghi S.p.A.
                          (Case C-468/00)
                                                                                (Case C-469/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/31)
                           (2001/C 45/30)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Cour de Cassation
An action against the French Republic was brought before the              Française, Chambre Commerciale, Financière et Économique,
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 December               of 19 December 2000, received at the Court Registry on
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       27 December 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
represented by Bernard Mongin, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,            Ravil S.à r.l. v Bellon Import Sà r.l. and Biraghi S.p.A. on the
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                following question:
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          ‘Must Article 29 (ex Article 34) of the EC Treaty be interpreted
                                                                          as precluding national legislation reserving the “grana padano”
                                                                          designation of origin for cheese grated in the region of
The Commission claims that the Court should:                              production in so far as such an obligation is not indispensable
                                                                          for preserving specific characteristics which the product has
                                                                          acquired?’
1.    declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 96/50/EC of 23 July 1996 on the
      harmonisation of the conditions for obtaining national
      boatmasters’ certificates for the carriage of goods and
      passengers by inland waterway in the Community (1), or,
      in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-502/99 (1)
      to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to
      fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                                (2001/C 45/32)
2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.                         By order of 6 September 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                          from the register of Case C-502/99: Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities v French Republic.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
Article 249 EC (ex Article 189), whereby a directive is binding
upon any Member State to which it is addressed as to the
result to be achieved, implies an obligation on Member States
to comply with the time-limits for transposition laid down in
directives. That time-limit expired on 7 April 1998 without                      Removal from the register of Case C-318/99 (1)
the French Republic implementing the necessary provisions to
comply with Directive 96/50/EC.                                                                     (2001/C 45/33)
                                                                          By order of 19 September 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
(1) OJ 1996 L 235, p. 31.                                                 from the register of Case C-318/99: Italian Republic v Com-
                                                                          mission of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.


title: Case T-519/12: Order of the General Court of 10 September 2014  — mobile.international v OHIM — Commission (PL mobile.eu) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/39

         Order of the General Court of 10 September 2014 — mobile.international v OHIM — Commission (PL mobile.eu)
   (Case T-519/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 409/56
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: mobile.international GmbH (Kleinmachnow, Germany) (represented by: T. Lührig, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: European Commission

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2012 (Case R 1401/2011-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between the European Commission and mobile.international GmbH.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the action.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case T-254/04: Action brought on 16 June 2004 by Spyridon de Athanassios Pappas against the Committee of the Regions

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/29

         Action brought on 16 June 2004 by Spyridon de Athanassios Pappas against the Committee of the Regions
   (Case T-254/04)
   (2004/C 262/56)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Committee of the Regions was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 16 June 2004 by Spyridon de Athanassios Pappas, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represented by Xanthi Gousta, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of the Committee of the Regions of 9 March 2004 in response to his complaint of 23 December 2003;

               —

               annul the decision of 8 October 2003 of the Bureau of the Committee of the Regions annulling recruitment procedure 2000/C 28 A/01;

               —

               order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant applied for the post of Secretary General of the Committee of the Regions and subsequently contested before the Court of First Instance (Case T-73/01) (1) the decision of the Committee to reject his application and appoint another candidate to that post. By judgment of 18 September 2003, (2) the Court of First Instance upheld his application. In the wake of that judgment, the Committee of the Regions, by decision of 8 October 2003, annulled the recruitment procedure at issue and opened a fresh recruitment procedure for the same post.
   By this action, the applicant contests the latter decision and the decision rejecting the complaint he lodged about it. He submits that under Article 233 EC the defendant should have reopened the first recruitment procedure, by reconstructing his application file fully and accurately and then proceeding to consult the ad hoc selection committee. According to the applicant, it was only after those steps had been taken that the defendant could validly annul the first recruitment procedure.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 2.6.2001, p. 23.

      (2)  OJ C 289, 29.11.2003, p. 20.


title: Case T-36/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 June 2008 — Zipcar, Inc. v OHIM — Canary Islands Car (ZIPCAR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ZIPCAR — Earlier national word mark CICAR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 June 2008 — Zipcar, Inc. v OHIM — Canary Islands Car (ZIPCAR)
   (Case T-36/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ZIPCAR - Earlier national word mark CICAR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 197/38)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Zipcar, Inc. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: M. Elmslie, Solicitor, and N. Saunders, Barrister,)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Canary Islands Car, SL (San Bartolome, Spain)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 November 2006 (case R 122/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Canary Islands Car, SL and Zipcar, Inc.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Zipcar, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.