title: Case C-436/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Areios Pagos (Greece) lodged on 4 August 2016 — Georgios Leventis, Nikolaos Vafeias v Malcon Navigation Co. Ltd, Brave Bulk Transport Ltd

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Areios Pagos (Greece) lodged on 4 August 2016 — Georgios Leventis, Nikolaos Vafeias v Malcon Navigation Co. Ltd, Brave Bulk Transport Ltd
   (Case C-436/16)
   (2016/C 392/14)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Areios Pagos (Greece)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Georgios Leventis, Nikolaos Vafeias

      Respondents: Malcon Navigation Co. Ltd, Brave Bulk Transport Ltd

      Question referred

   Does the jurisdiction clause which has been agreed pursuant to Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) between companies and in the present case is included in the privately-executed agreement of 14 November 2007 between the first and second respondents, Article 10 of which provides that ‘the present agreement shall be governed by English law, it shall be subject to English jurisdiction and any dispute arising from or in connection with it shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court of England and Wales’, also encompass, as regards acts and omissions of the organs of the second respondent, who represent it and give rise to liability on its part pursuant to Article 71 of the Greek Civil Code, the persons responsible who acted in the performance of their duties and are liable under that article, in conjunction with Article 926 of the Greek Civil Code, jointly and severally with the company, a legal person?

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 April 2005 in Case C-31/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2001/29/EC — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 28 April 2005
   in Case C-31/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/29/EC - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2005/C 171/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-31/04: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Banks and F. Castillo de la Torre) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: M. Muñoz Pérez) — Action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 29 March 2004 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, A. La Pergola, J. Malenovský (Rapporteur) and A. Ó. Caoimh, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs

      (1)  OJ C 71 of 20.03.2004.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Genova - Sezione 1a Civile by order of that court of 23 May 1996 in the dispute pending before it between Vezza SpA and Ministero delle Finanze (Case C-278/96)

text:
 26 . 10 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 318/3
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
 Landesarbeitsgericht by order of that court of 1 July 1996 in          Genova by orders of 27 June 1996 ( Case C-279/96 ) and
 the case of Hans-Jorg Dick v. EB-Schulungs-Gesellschaft                19 July 1996 ( Cases C-280/96 and C-281/96 ) in the cases
                       mbH ( in liquidation )                           of: 1 . Ansaldo Energia SpA v. Amministrazione Finanziaria
                          ( Case C-277/96 )                             dello Stato, 2 . Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v.
                                                                        Marine Insurance Consultants SRL, and 3 . G. M. B. SRL
                             ( 96/C 318/02 )                             and Others v . Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      (Joined Cases C-279/96 , C-280/96 and C-281 /96 )
 European Communities by a judgment of the Hessisches                                             ( 96/C 318 /04 )
 Landesarbeitsgericht ( Higher Labour Court, Hesse ) of
 1 July 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
 20 August 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 Hans-Jorg Dick v. EB-Schulungs-Gesellschaft mbH ( in                   European Communities by orders of 27 June 1996 and
 liquidation ) on the following question :                              21 August 1996 of the Tribunale di Genova ( Genoa District
                                                                        Court ), which were all received at the Court Registry on
 Does Council Directive 77/ 187/EEC ( l ) apply where :                 21 August 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases of
                                                                        1 . Ansaldo Energia SpA v. Amministrazione Finanziaria
 — an undertaking, engaged in vocational training and                   dello Stato, 2 . Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v.
     retraining, whose trainees are on courses sponsored by             Marine Insurance Consultants SRL, and 3 . G. M. B. SRL
     the employment authorities that lead to qualification              and Others v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato on
     as an industrial clerical officer, terminates , because            the following questions :
     of its insolvency, its agreements with the employment
     authorities, whereupon a legally independent
     competitor undertaking, that has previously run only               1 . Is national legislation which sets, in respect of the
     courses of other kinds, some independently financed and                 initiation of proceedings to safeguard a right arising
     some sponsored likewise by the employment authorities,                  under Community law, a time limit which starts to run
     takes over under an agreement with those authorities                    before the correct and complete transposition into
     the running of the courses begun by the first                           national law of the Directive conferring that right
     undertaking;                                                            compatible with Community law ?
 — at about the same time the second undertaking enters
     into new contracts of employment with a significant                2 . Is it compatible with Community law to provide a party
     proportion of the teaching staff of the insolvent                       whose rights are recognized as having been infringed,
     undertaking, in order to reinforce its own personnel, and               and to whom repayment of the sums claimed is granted ,
     uses them to teach the courses that it has taken over;                  with a remedial procedure under which the rules as to
     and                                                                     quantum differ from, and compare unfavourably with ,
                                                                             those laid down in respect of actions for repayment
 — the second undertaking is subsequently appointed by the                   between private individuals, and are substantially
     employment authorities to run new courses as well , like                determined by a measure enacted by the same State as
     those previously run by the insolvent undertaking ?                     that which infringed the injured party's rights by failing
                                                                             to fulfil its obligations ?
 (') OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
 Genova — Sezione l a Civile by order of that court of 23 May
 1996 in the dispute pending before it between Vezza SpA                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
                  and Ministero delle Finanze                           Grande Instance de Briey by judgment of that court of
                                                                        8 August 1996 in the case of Didier Tabouillot v. Directeur
                          ( Case C-278/96                                       des Services Fiscaux de Meurthe et de Moselle
                            ( 96/C 318/03 )
                                                                                Case C-284/96 )
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                           ( 96/C 318 /05 )
 European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
 Genova — Sezione l a Civile ( Genoa District Court, First
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 Section ) of 23 May 1996 , which was received at the Court             European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
 Registry on 21 August 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the           Grande Instance de Briey ( Regional Court, Briey ) of
 dispute pending before it between Vezza SpA and Ministero              8 August 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
-delle Finanze .
                                                                        22 August 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                        Didier Tabouillot v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux de
 The questions referred by the Tribunale di Genova —
 Sezione l a Civile to the Court of Justice for a preliminary           Meurthe et de Moselle ( Chief Tax Inspector for Meurthe et
 ruling are identical with those in Case C-47/95 ( 1 ).                 Moselle ) on the following questions :
 (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 5 .                              1 . Is Article 95 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
                                                                             precluding the application of a method for establishing


title: Case C-525/14: Action brought on 20 November 2014  — European Commission v Czech Republic

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/23

         Action brought on 20 November 2014 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-525/14)
   (2015/C 046/30)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to recognise certain Netherlands hallmarks, in particular hallmarks of Waarborg Holland, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By failing to recognise certain Netherlands hallmarks, the Czech Republic is restricting the free movement of precious metals marked with those hallmarks and of objects produced from those metals.

               2.

               Even if precious metal is hallmarked by a branch of a Netherlands hallmarking office in a third State, such products should be treated in the same way as goods originating in the European Union, in view of the fact that the precious metals are hallmarked in accordance with the Netherlands rules and are definitively released into free circulation.

               3.

               The Czech Republic has not shown that the possible restriction of the free movement of goods is appropriate for ensuring achievement of the consumer protection objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary for achieving it.


title: Case C-631/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Oviedo (Spain) lodged on 27 November 2015 — Carlos Álvarez Santirso v Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte del Principado de Asturias

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Oviedo (Spain) lodged on 27 November 2015 — Carlos Álvarez Santirso v Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte del Principado de Asturias
   (Case C-631/15)
   (2016/C 068/28)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Oviedo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Carlos Álvarez Santirso

      Defendant: Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte del Principado de Asturias

      Question referred

   Must Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement to which Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 on fixed-term work refers be interpreted as precluding regional legislation such as the Law of the Principality of Asturias 6/2009 of 29 December 2009 on public teaching evaluation and incentives which, under Article 2, makes eligibility for inclusion in the evaluation plan (with the resulting entitlement to the associated economic incentives) dependent on having the status of a career civil servant, thereby excluding interim civil servants?

      (1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).


title: Case C-203/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court dated 24 May 2002, in the case of 1) The British Horseracing Board Limited, 2) The Jockey Club and 3) Weatherbys Group Limited against William Hill Organization Limited

text:
C 180/14              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       27.7.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal               (7) Is ‘extraction’ in Article 7 of the Directive limited to the
(England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that                        transfer of the contents of the database directly from the
court dated 24 May 2002, in the case of 1) The British                        database to another medium, or does it also include the
Horseracing Board Limited, 2) The Jockey Club and                             transfer of works, data or other materials, which are
3) Weatherbys Group Limited against William Hill Organ-                       derived indirectly from the database, without having
                         ization Limited                                      direct access to the database?
                        (Case C-203/02)                                 (8) Is ‘re-utilisation’ in Article 7 of the Directive limited to
                                                                              the making available to the public of the contents of the
                                                                              database directly from the database, or does it also include
                        (2002/C 180/23)                                       the making available to the public of works, data or other
                                                                              materials which are derived indirectly from the database,
                                                                              without having direct access to the database?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        (9) Is ‘re-utilisation’ in Article 7 of the Directive limited to
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
                                                                              the first making available to the public of the contents of
(England and Wales) (Civil Division) dated 24 May 2002,
                                                                              the database?
which was received at the Court Registry on 31 May 2002, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of 1) The British Horseracing
Board Limited, 2) The Jockey Club and 3) Weatherbys Group               (10) In Article 7(5) of the Directive what is meant by ‘acts
Limited against William Hill Organization Limited, on the                     which conflict with a normal exploitation of that database
following questions:                                                          or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the
                                                                              maker of the database’? In particular, are the facts and
(1) May either of the expressions:                                            matters in paragraphs 40-47 above in the context of the
                                                                              facts and matters in paragraphs 32-35 above capable of
     (a)  ‘substantial part of the contents of the database’; or              amounting to such acts?
     (b) ‘insubstantial parts of the contents of the database’          (11) Does Article 10(3) of the Directive mean that, whenever
                                                                              there is a ‘substantial change’ to the contents of a
     in Article 7 of the Directive (1) include works, data or                 database, qualifying the resulting database for its own
     other materials derived from the database but which do                   term of protection, the resulting database must be
     not have the same systematic or methodical arrangement                   considered to be a new, separate database, including for
     of and individual accessibility to be found in the database?             the purposes of Article 7(5)?
(2) What is meant by ‘obtaining’ in Article 7(1) of the
     Directive? In particular, are the facts and matters in             (1) Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                            of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases. OJ L 77,
     paragraphs 24-31 above capable of amounting to such
                                                                            27.3.1996, p. 20.
     obtaining?
(3) Is ‘verification’ in Article 7(1) of the Directive limited to
     ensuring from time to time that information contained in
     a database is or remains correct?
(4) What is meant in Article 7(1) of the Directive, by the
     expressions:
                                                                        Action brought on 4 June 2002 by the Commission of the
     (a)  ‘a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively ... of the
                                                                        European Communities against the United Kingdom of
          contents of that database’? and
                                                                                Great Britain and Northern Ireland
     (b) ‘a substantial part, evaluated quantitatively ... of the
          contents of that database’?                                                            (Case C-210/02)
(5) What is meant in Article 7(5) of the Directive, by the
     expression ‘insubstantial parts of the database’?                                           (2002/C 180/24)
(6) In particular, in each case:
     (a)  does ‘substantial’ mean something more than ‘insig-           An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
          nificant’ and, if so, what?                                   Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities on 4 June 2002 by the Commission of
     (b) does ‘insubstantial’ part simply mean that it is not           the European Communities, represented by Thomas Cusack,
          ‘substantial’?                                                acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-440/16: Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Souruh v Council

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/23

      Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Souruh v Council
      (Case T-440/16)
      (2016/C 364/23)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded;

                  —

                  as a consequence, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

                  —

                  order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of its action, the applicant raises five pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-411/16, Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council.


title: Case T-435/05: Action brought on  5 December 2005  — Danjaq/OHIM

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/41

         Action brought on 5 December 2005 — Danjaq/OHIM
   (Case T-435/05)
   (2006/C 60/79)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Danjaq LLC (Santa Monica, USA) [represented by: L. Berg, S. Skrein, Solicitors and G. Hobbs, G. Hollingworth, Barristers]

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mission Productions GmbH (Munich, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal in case number R 1118/2004-1;

               —

               allow the opponent's opposition to Community trade mark application number 2 256 378, or alternatively remit the opposition to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market for further consideration in accordance with the judgment of the Court,

               —

               award the opponent its costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Mission Productions GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Dr. No’ for goods in classes 9, 12, 18, 25 and 32 — application No 2 256 378

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: The earlier well-known mark, earlier non-registered mark and earlier sign used in the course of trade ‘Dr. No’ and ‘Dr. NO’ for films, DVDs, comic books, music recordings, books, posters and action figures (toys)

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(2)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal misinterpreted Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention by holding that use within the Community had to be proved by the applicant.
   Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 since there is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks as the conflicting marks and several of the goods covered by these marks are identical.
   Infringement of Articles 8(4) and 73 of Council Regulation No 40/94 and Rules 50(2) and 52(1) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 because the Board of Appeal failed to consider the opposition under Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and should have recognised that the applicant was the proprietor of numerous earlier rights and that it had used the marks cited in the opposition in the course of trade.


title: Case C-548/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Belgium), lodged on 31 October 2011 — Edgard Mulders v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/32

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Belgium), lodged on 31 October 2011 — Edgard Mulders v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen
      (Case C-548/11)
      (2012/C 25/59)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Edgard Mulders

         Respondent: Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

         Question referred

      Is Article 46 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community infringed in the case where, in the calculation of the pension of a migrant worker, a period of incapacity for work during which a work incapacity benefit was awarded and contributions under the Netherlands General Law on Old-Age Pensions were paid is not regarded as being a ‘period of insurance’ within the meaning of Article 1(r) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71?

         (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416.


title: Case T-509/17: Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Cartera de Inversiones Melca and Others v Commission and SRB

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/40

         Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Cartera de Inversiones Melca and Others v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-509/17)
   (2017/C 347/52)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Cartera de Inversiones Melca, SL (Avilés, Spain), Servicios Inmobiliarios Avilés, SL (Avilés), Hotel Avilés, SA (Avilés), Arside Construcciones Mecánicas, SA (Carreño, Spain) (represented by: B. Gutiérrez de la Roza Pérez, P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruiz de la Torre Esporrín and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should annul:

               —

               Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board taken at its executive session of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A.;

               —

               Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Cases T-349/06, T-371/06, T-14/07, T-15/07 and in Case T-332/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2008 — Germany v Commission (ERDF — Reduction of financial assistance — Change in the financing plan without the consent of the Commission — Concept of significant change — Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Actions for annulment)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2008 — Germany v Commission
   (Cases T-349/06, T-371/06, T-14/07, T-15/07 and in Case T-332/07) (1)

   (ERDF - Reduction of financial assistance - Change in the financing plan without the consent of the Commission - Concept of significant change - Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 - Actions for annulment)
   (2008/C 272/44)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and, in Cases T-349/06, T-371/06, T-14/07 and T-15/07, also by C. Schulze-Bahr, Agents, assisted by C. von Donat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and L. Flynn, Agents)
   Re:
   ACTION for the annulment of Decisions C(2006) 4193 final and C(2006) 4194 final of 25 September 2006, Decisions C(2006) 5163 final and C(2006) 5164 final of 3 November 2006 and Decision C(2007) 2619 final of 25 June 2007 reducing the financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for Objective 2 1997-1999 of the RESIDER — Nordrhein-Westfalen Operational Programme 1994-1999, for the Operational Programmes for Nordrhein-Westfalen in the framework of the common SME (small and medium-sized enterprises) and RECHAR II initiatives, and for the Operational Programme for Community structural assistance in the Objective 2 regions of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen for the period 1994-1996 respectively.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Case T-332/07 to Cases T-349/06, T-371/06, T-14/07 and T-15/07 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Case T-369/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of  14 December 2005  — Arizona Chemical BV and Others v Commission (Directive 67/548/EEC — Refusal to declassify rosin as a dangerous substance — Action for annulment — Act not open to challenge — Action for damages — Limitation — Plea of illegality — Inadmissibility)

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/18

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 — Arizona Chemical BV and Others v Commission
   (Case T-369/03) (1)

   (Directive 67/548/EEC - Refusal to declassify rosin as a dangerous substance - Action for annulment - Act not open to challenge - Action for damages - Limitation - Plea of illegality - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 74/37)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties:

      Applicants: Arizona Chemical BV (Huizen, Netherlands), Eastman Belgium BVBA (Kallo, Belgium), Resinall Europe BVBA (Bruges, Belgium), and Cray Valley Iberica, SA (Madrid) (represented by C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by X. Lewis and F. Simonetti, Agents)

      Interverners in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by T. Pynnä and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agents)
   Application for
   first, annulment of an act of the Commission rejecting the applicants' request for the withdrawal of rosin from the list of sensitising substances set out in Annex I to Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234), and, second, for compensation for the damages suffered
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the defendant.

               3.

               The intervener shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 10.1.2004.


title: Case C-43/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Stuttgart by order of that Court of 8 February 2002 in the case of Landesbausparkasse Baden-Württemberg against Elisabeth Huttenlocher

text:
4.5.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 109/27
account of the substitutive nature of certain food and drink               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
products (such as, in particular, breakfast cereals enriched with          Stuttgart by order of that Court of 8 February 2002 in the
vitamin D).                                                                case of Landesbausparkasse Baden-Württemberg against
                                                                                Elisabeth Huttenlocher
                                                                                (Case C-43/02)
(1) Council Directive 89/398 on the approximation of the laws of
    the Member States relating to foodstuffs intended for particular
    nutritional uses (OJ 1989 L 186, p. 27, as amended).                                           (2002/C 109/45)
(2) Council Directive 89/107/EEC on the approximation of the laws
    of the Member States concerning food additives authorised for
    use in foodstuffs intended for human consumption (OJ 1989
    L 40, p. 27, as amended).                                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Landgericht Stuttgart
                                                                           (Regional Court, Stuttgart) of 11 February 2002, received at
                                                                           the Court Registry on 15 February 2002, for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the case of Landesbausparkasse Baden-Württemberg
                                                                           against Elisabeth Huttenlocher on the following question:
                                                                           Is the second part of Article 2 of Directive 85/577/EEC(1) to
                                                                           be interpreted as meaning that a close dependant (in this case
                                                                           an unmarried partner) is also acting ‘in the name or on behalf
                                                                           of a trader’ where that person as a consumer takes out a loan
                                                                           with a trader, the trader makes the loan subject to a security
                                                                           (assumption of joint liability), makes the requisite form
                                                                           available to that person and the borrower presents the form
                                                                           for signature to his close dependant in the residence which
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ålands För-                      they share?
valtningsdomstol by judgment of that Court of 5 February
2002 in the proceedings, brought by Diana Elisabeth
                              Lindman                                      (1) OJ L 372 of 31.12.1985, p. 31.
                           (Case C-42/02)
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vantaan Kärä-
                          (2002/C 109/44)                                  jäoikeus by order of that Court of 1 February 2002 in the
                                                                             case of Fixtures Marketing Ltd against Oy Veikkaus Ab
                                                                                (Case C-46/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/46)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Ålands För-
valtningsdomstol (Administrative Court, Åland, Finland) of
5 February 2002, received at the Court Registry on 15 February             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the proceeding, brought by               European Communities by order of the Vantaan Käräjäoikeus
Diana Elisabeth Lindman on the following question:                         (District Court, Vantaa) of 1 February 2002, received at the
                                                                           Court Registry on 18 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the case of Fixtures Marketing Ltd against Oy Veikkaus Ab
Does Article 49 of the Treaty establishing the European                    on the following questions:
Communities preclude a Member State from applying rules
under which lottery winnings from lotteries held in other                  1)    May the requirement in Article 7(1) of the directive (1) for
Member States are included in the taxable income of the                          a link between the investment and the making of the
winner on assessment to income tax, whereas lottery winnings                     database be interpreted in the sense that the ‘obtaining’
from lotteries held in the Member State in question are exempt                   referred to in Article 7(1) and the investment directed at
from tax.                                                                        it refers, in the present case, to investment which is
                                                                                directed at the determination of the dates of the matches
                                                                                and the match pairings themselves and, when the criteria
                                                                                for granting protection are appraised, does the drawing
                                                                                up of the fixture list include investment which is not
                                                                                relevant?


title: Case T-381/06: Action brought on 15 December 2006 — FRA.BO v Commission

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/29

         Action brought on 15 December 2006 — FRA.BO v Commission
   (Case T-381/06)
   (2007/C 42/51)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: FRA.BO SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: R. Celli and F. Distefano, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 2 of Commission Decision of 20 September 2006 (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings — C(2006) 4180 final) relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC, insofar as it relates to the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant;

               —

               reduce the fine imposed on the applicant under the Court's jurisdiction; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 in Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings, by which the Commission found that the applicant, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by fixing prices, agreeing on price lists, agreeing on discounts and rebates, agreeing on implementation mechanisms for introducing price increases, allocating national markets, allocating customers and exchanging other commercial information.
   The applicant challenges the contested decision on the following grounds:

               —

               The applicant claims, first, that the Commission made a manifest error of appreciation and breached fundamental principles of law in making an improper and unlawful application of the principles of the 2002 Leniency Notice (1).

               —

               The applicant further claims, that the Commission made a manifest error of appreciation by granting FRA.BO a disproportionately low reduction of 20 per cent under the 1996 Leniency Notice, and infringed the fundamental principles of proportionality, legitimate expectations and duty to state reasons.

      (1)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).


title: Case T-156/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Dimitra Lantzoni v Court of Justice (Officials — Promotion — Award of promotion points — Link to staff report — Refusal of promotion)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/47

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Dimitra Lantzoni v Court of Justice
   (Case T-156/05) (1)

   (Officials - Promotion - Award of promotion points - Link to staff report - Refusal of promotion)
   (2006/C 294/98)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Dimitra Lantzoni (residing at Übersyren, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Bouché, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice (represented by: M. Schauss, Agent)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of 8 March 2005 of the defendant's Complaints Committee relating, first, to the promotion points awarded to the applicant for 2002 and, second, to the fact that she was not promoted in 2003.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155 of 25.6.2005


C 71/44               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                    20.3.2004
       Removal from the register of Case T-319/02 (1)                            Removal from the register of Case T-191/03 (1)
                         (2004/C 71/77)                                                            (2004/C 71/79)
                  (Language of the Case: English)                                            (Language of the Case: French)
By order of 14 November 2003 the President of the Second
                                                                          By order of 1 December 2003 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of
T-319/02: H.O. Sport Inc. v Office for the Harmonisation of
                                                                          Case T-191/03: Alexandre Tilgenkamp v Commission of the
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM).
                                                                          European Communities.
(1) OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.
       Removal from the register of Case T-180/03 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-296/03 (1)
                         (2004/C 71/78)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/80)
                  (Language of the Case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Italian)
By order of 4 December 2003 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of                      By order of 15 December 2003 the President of the Fourth
Case T-180/03: Auna Operadores de Telecomunicaciones S.A.                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
and Others v Commission of the European Communities.                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                          Case T-296/03: Proteco srl v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
(1) OJ C 171 of 19.7.2003.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.


title: Case T-519/11 P: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2012 — Gozi v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Request for assistance — Commission decision not to reimburse to the applicant the costs incurred in proceedings before a national criminal court — Appeal partly clearly inadmissible and partly clearly unfounded)

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/10

         Order of the General Court of 6 September 2012 — Gozi v Commission
   (Case T-519/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Request for assistance - Commission decision not to reimburse to the applicant the costs incurred in proceedings before a national criminal court - Appeal partly clearly inadmissible and partly clearly unfounded)
   2012/C 319/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Sandro Gozi (Soglianó Al Rubicone, Italy) (represented by: G. Passalacqua and G. Calcerano, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 20 July 2011 in Case F-116/10 Gozi v Commission, not yet reported, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Sandro Gozi is ordered to bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Case C-71/05: Judgement of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  8 June 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/30/EC — Air transport — Noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/6

         Judgement of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-71/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/30/EC - Air transport - Noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 178/09)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Huttunen, Agent)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S. Schreiner, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose, within the prescribed period, Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports (OJ 2002 L 85, p. 40)
   Operative part of the judgement
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court of 4 May 1999 in Case C-262/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Aachen): Sema Sürül v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision of the Association Council - Social Security - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality - Direct effect - Turkish national authorised to reside in a Member State - Entitlement to family allowances under the same conditions as nationals of that State)

text:
C 204/12                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            17.7.1999
     surface freshwaters as ‘waters affected by pollution’, and therefore    having their seat in another Member State and carrying on business
     the designation as ‘vulnerable zones’ in accordance with                in the first Member State through a permanent establishment situated
     Article 3(2) of that directive of all known areas of land which         there, excludes the possibility, accorded only to companies having
     drain into those waters and contribute to their pollution, where        their seat in the first Member State, of benefiting from a lower rate
     those waters contain a concentration of nitrates in excess of           of tax on profits, when there is no objective difference in the situation
     50 mg/l and the Member State concerned considers that the               between those two categories of companies which could justify such a
     discharge of nitrogen compounds from agricultural sources makes         difference in treatment.
     a ‘significant contribution’ to that overall concentration of
     nitrates.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.
2. Consideration of the questions raised has disclosed no factor of
     such a kind as to affect the validity of Directive 91/676.
(1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 4 May 1999
                                                                             in Case C-262/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Sozialgericht Aachen): Sema Sürül v Bundesanstalt
                                                                                für Arbeit (1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision of the
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                   Association Council — Social Security — Principle of
                                                                             non-discrimination on grounds of nationality — Direct
                                                                             effect — Turkish national authorised to reside in a Member
                          of 29 April 1999
                                                                             State — Entitlement to family allowances under the same
                                                                                conditions as nationals of that State)
in Case C-311/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Dioikitiko Protokikeio Peiraios): Royal Bank of                                                 (1999/C 204/23)
       Scotland plc v Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) (1)
(Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Tax on                                             (Language of the case: German)
                          company profits)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                           (1999/C 204/22)                                                        in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-262/96, Reference to the Court under Article 234
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                           EC (ex Article 177) by the Sozialgericht Aachen (Germany) for
                                                                             a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                             court between Sema Sürül and Bundesanstalt für Arbeit — on
                                                                             the interpretation of certain provisions of Decision No 3/80 of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the
                    in the European Court Reports)                           application of the social security schemes of the Member
                                                                             States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and
In Case C-311/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                members of their families (OJ 1983 110, p. 60) — the Court
the EC Treaty by the Dioikitiko Protodikio Peiraios (Greece)                 composed          of:     G.C. Rodrı́guez      Iglesias,      President,
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Presidents of Cham-
court between Royal Bank of Scotland plc and Elliniko                        bers), J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann J.L. Murray,
Dimosio (Greek State) — on the interpretation of Article 7 of                D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and R. Schintger
the EEC Treaty (now Article 6 of the EC Treaty) and Article 52               (Rapporteur), Judges; Advocate General; A. La Pergola; H. von
of the EC Treaty — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                   Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 May
P. Jann, President of the First Chamber, acting for the President            1999, in which it held that:
of the Fifth Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O.
Edward, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges; Advo-                1. On a proper construction of Article 3(1) of Decision No 3/80
cate General; S. Alber; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                        of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 1999, in which it                     application of the social security schemes of the Member States
held that:                                                                        of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members
                                                                                of their families, a Member State may not require of a Turkish
                                                                                national covered by that decision whom it has authorised to
Articles 52 and 58 of the EC Treaty are to be interpreted as                      reside in its territory, but who holds in that host State only a
precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the tax legislation             conditional residence authorisation issued for a specified purpose
in question in the main proceedings, which, in the case of companies              and for a limited duration, that, in order to receive family
 ---pagebreak--- 17.7.1999                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 204/13
     allowances for his child who resides with him in that Member                   associated with the category of goods in question; it also
     State, he must be in possession of a residence entitlement or a                applies to geographical names which are liable to be used in
     residence permit, whereas for that purpose nationals of that State             future by the undertakings concerned as an indication of the
     are required only to be resident there.                                        geographical origin of that category of goods;
2. The direct effect of Article 3(1) of Decision No 3/80 may not be             — where there is currently no association in the mind of the
     relied on in support of claims relating to benefits in respect of              relevant class of persons between the geographical name and
     periods prior to the date of this judgment except as regards those             the category of goods in question, the competent authority
     persons who, before that date, initiated proceedings or made an                must assess whether it is reasonable to assume that such a
     equivalent claim.                                                              name is, in the mind of the relevant class of persons, capable
                                                                                of designating the geographical origin of that category of
(1) OJ C 269 of 14.9.1996.                                                          goods;
                                                                                — in making that assessment, particular consideration should
                                                                                be given to the degree of familiarity amongst the relevant
                                                                                class of persons with the geographica1 name in question,
                                                                                with the characteristics of the place designated by that name,
                                                                                and with the category of good concerned;
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                — it is not necessary for the goods to be manufactured in the
                                                                                geographical location in order for them to be associated with
                             of 4 May 1999                                          it.
in joined Cases C-108/97 and C-109/97 (reference for a                      2. The first sentence of Article 3(3) of the First Directive
preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I):                             89/104/EEC is to be interpreted as meaning that:
Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH
(WSC) v Boots- und Segelzubehör Walter Huber (C-
         108/97) and Franz Attenberger (C-109/97) (1)                           — a trade mark acquires distinctive character following the use
                                                                                which has been made of it where the mark has come to
                                                                                identify the product in respect of which registration is applied
(Directive 89/104/EEC — Trade marks — Geographical
                                                                                for as originating from a particular undertaking and thus to
                         indications of origin)
                                                                                distinguish that product from goods of other undertakings;
                            (1999/C 204/24)
                                                                                — it precludes differentiation as regards distinctiveness by
                                                                                reference to the perceived importance of keeping the geo-
                    (Language of the case: German)                                  graphical name available for use by other undertakings;
                                                                                — in determining whether a trace mark has acquired distinctive
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published              character following the use which has been made of it, the
                     in the European Court Reports)                                 competent authority must make an overall assessment of the
                                                                                evidence that the mark has come to identify the product
In Joined Cases C-108/97 and C-109/97: reference to the                             concerned as originating from a particular undertaking and
Court under Article 234 EC (ex Article 177) by the Landgericht                      thus to distinguish that product from goods of other
München I, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-                        undertakings;
ings pending before that court between Windsurfing Chiemsee
Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH (WSC) and Boots- und                            — if the competent authority finds that a significant proportion
Segelzubehör Walter Huber (C-108/97), Franz Attenberger                             of the relevant class of persons identify goods as originating
(C-109/97) — on the interpretation of Articles 3(1)(c) and 3(3)                     from a particular undertaking because of the trade mark, it
of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December                            must hold the requirement for registering the mark to be
1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating                          satisfied;
to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — the Court, composed
of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn,
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers,                — where the competent authority has particular difficulty in
G.F. Mancini, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rappor-                         assessing the distinctive character of a mark in respect of
teur) and D.A.O. Edward, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate Gen-                           which registration is applied for, Community law does not
eral; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                    preclude it from having recourse, under the conditions laid
given a judgment on 4 May 1999, in which it has ruled:                              down by its own national law, to an opinion poll as guidance
                                                                                for its judgment.
1. Article 3(1)(c) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21
     December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
     relating to trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that:          (1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.
     — it does not prohibit the registration of geographical names
          as trade marks solely where the names designate places which
          are, in the mind of the relevant class of persons, currently


title: Case C-93/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Navarra (Spain) lodged on 26 February 2014  — Miguel Angel Zurbano Belaza, Antonia Artieda Soria v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Navarra (Spain) lodged on 26 February 2014 — Miguel Angel Zurbano Belaza, Antonia Artieda Soria v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
   (Case C-93/14)
   2014/C 151/16
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Navarra

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Miguel Angel Zurbano Belaza and Antonia Artieda Soria

      Other party: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               If an action in personam is brought by a bank in 2009 to recover the sum that it considers is owed to it by its clients following the sale at auction of their mortgaged properties, is Directive 93/13/EEC (1) applicable for the purpose of examining the terms of a mortgage loan contracted in 1986, in view of the fact that the third auction (19 July 1993), the decisions of the court approving the quantification of the interest (3 July 2000) and definitively approving the order awarding the properties auctioned (18 July 2000) all post-date the publication of that directive?

               2.

               If an action in personam is brought by a bank in 2009 to recover the sum that it considers is owed to it by its clients following the sale at auction of their mortgaged properties, must the national court interpret Article 10 of Law 26/1984 in the light of Directive 1993/13, in view of the fact that the third auction (19 July 1993), the decisions of the court approving the quantification of the interest (3 July 2000) and definitively approving the order awarding the properties auctioned (18 July 2000) all post-date the publication of that directive?

               3.

               For the purposes of the exclusion provided for in Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13, does the mandatory nature of rule 12 of Article 131 of the Law on mortgages affect only the form of the procedures to be followed in respect of the third auction when a mortgage lender brings an action in rem, without preventing the national court, when the mortgage lender subsequently brings an action in personam, from considering whether the method of calculating the amount claimed is compatible with Community legislation?

               4.

               Is it contrary to Community consumer protection legislation (Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 93/13) for a bank, after the mortgaged properties have been sold at auction and awarded at a ‘derisory’ price, to bring an action in personam against its clients and to use the ‘derisory’ price that was offered for the properties at the time of the auction in order to fix the amount of the debt claimed?

               5.

               If an action in personam is brought by a bank in 2009 to recover the sum that it considers is owed to it by its clients following the sale at auction of their mortgaged properties, which were awarded to it at a ‘derisory’ price, does failure to take into consideration the legislative amendments introduced by Laws 1/2000 and 4/2011 constitute a breach of the general principle of equal treatment?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts; OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case F-36/14: Action brought on 18 April 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/60

         Action brought on 18 April 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-36/14)
   2014/C 292/77
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission decisions, firstly, rejecting the application for extension of the applicant’s service and, secondly, confirming his automatic retirement on 1 June 2014.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision adopted by the Appointing Authority on 28 March 2014, together with the decision of the Director-General of DG ENTR of 7 April 2014, rejecting the application for extension of the applicant’s service and, accordingly, confirming his automatic retirement on 1 June 2014;

               —

               Remedy the losses which have resulted or may result from the contested decisions;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs


No C 31 /20            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                           3 . 2 . 96
The choice of a 5 % profit margin is difficult to understand          Commission has hitherto failed to adopt a final decision
in that in a regional procedure limited to the United                 regarding their application for a negative clearance or an
Kingdom concerning the same product, which led the                    exemption for the rules for the certification of crane hire
Commission to accept quantitative undertakings from May               businesses which they have notified, and which include a
1994 , it accepted a profit margin of 10% .                           prohibition on the hiring of non-certificated cranes . In
                                                                      interlocutory proceedings the national court has ordered
The applicant finally considers that a 15 % profit margin is          that the prohibition of hiring such cranes is not to be applied
the vital minimum which would enable the Community                    until the Commission has adopted a final decision. The
industry, on the one hand, to finance necessary sustaining            applicants claim that as a result of the prohibition by the
investment and, on the other hand, to reinvest for updating           court there is a danger that the national Raad voor de
and replacing existing capacities .                                   Certificatie will withdraw its recognition of the applicants,
                                                                      which threatens their existence and impairs their good
                                                                      reputation .
                                                                      The applicants consider that the Commission's failure is
                                                                      unlawful because it infringes Article 6 of the European
                                                                      Convention on the Protection of Human Rights, in
Action brought on 27 November 1995 by the Stichting                   particular the requirement for a fair timelimit to
Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf and the Federatie van                proceedings, and because it infringes general principles of
Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven against Commission                  law, namely the principle of legal certainty, the principle of
                 of the European Communities                          the protection of legitimate expectations and the applicants'
                        ( Case T-2 13/95 )                            right to a hearing.
                           ( 96/C 31 /47
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European                             Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-97/93
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                                  and others (M
Instance of the European Communities on 27 November                                                   96/C 31 /48
 1995 by the Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf and
the Federatie van Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven,                                   (Language of the case: German)
whose registered offices are both at Culemborg
 ( Netherlands ), represented by M. van Empel, of the                 By order of 11 December 1995 the President of the First
Amsterdam Bar, and T. Janssens, of the Brussels Bar, with             Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of               Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe .                                            from the register of Cases T-142/93 : Heinz Giinther Herken
                                                                      v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the
The applicants claim that the Court should:                           European Communities, and T-149/93 : Hans Roper v.
                                                                       Council of the European Union and Commission of the
 1 . hold the European Community liable for the damage                European Communities.
      which the applicants are suffering and will suffer as a
      result of the unlawful conduct of the Commission cited           ( ] ) OJ No C 178 , 18 . 7. 1990, OJ No C 146 , 5 . 6 . 1991 and OJ
                                                                             No C 44 , 19 . 2 . 1992 .
      in the application;
 2 . order the European Community to pay compensation
      for that damage and to establish the extent of the
      damage in consultation with the applicants, and if the
      parties are not able to reach a mutual agreement                         Removal from the register of Case T-224/94 ( J )
      regarding the determination of the extent of the damage                                          96/C 31 /49
      to declare that the Court will establish its extent, if
      necessary after appointing an expert in order to quantify                         (Language of the case: English)
      exactly what damage has been suffered;
                                                                       By order of 18 December 1995 the President of the Fifth
  3 . order the European Community to pay the costs of these           Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
      proceedings .                                                    Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case T-224/94 : Ferchimex N.V. v.
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Council of the European Union, supported by the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities .
  The applicants claim that despite an express call for it to act,
  made pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty, the                    (!) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .


title: Appeal brought on 15 May 1997 by L. B. Rasmussen against the judgment delivered on 18 March 1997 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-35/96 between L. B. Rasmussen and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-188/97 P)

text:
12 . 7. 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 212/17
The applicant claims that the Court should :                               users in its area, if the purpose is to protect the supply
                                                                           undertaking which it owns itself from competition in
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                  its area arising from use of the transit main ?
      period the measures necessary to comply with
      Commission Directive 93/71 /EEC ( ] ), the Federal               3 . If Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative:
      Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the EC Treaty and under that Directive, and                    Is a local authority or a legally independent supply
                                                                           undertaking owned by it ( with which the local
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                   authority has concluded an exclusive agreement for
                                                                           the use of its roads ) to be regarded, in relation to the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        local distribution of natural gas to end-users , as
                                                                           entrusted with the operation of a service of general
                                                                           economic interest within the meaning of Article 90 ( 2 )
The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 189                    of the EC Treaty, where such distribution is not a task
and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty                       assigned by the State — and is equally open to purely
requires the Member States to transpose the provisions of                   private undertakings — where the local authority may
a Directive into internal law so that they produce their full
                                                                            nevertheless carry out the task as a local community
effect by the expiry of the period prescribed for that                      matter and where, in providing such supplies, that
purpose . That period came to an end on 3 August 1994                       local authority ( or its supply undertaking ) is — like
without Germany having enacted the necessary provisions .                   private undertakings — subject to State supervision
                                                                            and under a general obligation to provide connections
(') OJ No L 221 , 31 . 8 . 1993 , p. 27 .                                   and to supply gas ?
                                                                       4 . If Questions 1 , 2 and 3 are answered in the
                                                                            affirmative :
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the                                   When examining whether, pursuant to Article 90 ( 2 )
Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 11 March                        of the EC Treaty, agreements of the kind described are
1997 in the case of Wingas GmbH ( formerly Wintershall                      not subject to Article 85 thereof, is account to be
               Gas GmbH) against Stadt Detmold                              taken only of factors relating to ensuring a reliable
                                                                            and reasonably-priced local supply of natural gas, or
                           Case C-187/97 )                                  are factors relating to other matters in the public
                            ( 97/C 212/30 )                                 interest ( in particular environmental protection ) also
                                                                            to be taken into account ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 5 . If Questions 1 , 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative
European Communities by order of the Kartellsenat                           and if, pursuant to the first sentence of Article 90 ( 2 )
 ( Cartel Chamber ) of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court                 of the EC Treaty, the Treaty rules on competition are
 of Justice ) of 11 March 1997, received at the Court                       not to be applied:
 Registry on 15 May 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the
 case of Wingas GmbH ( formerly Wintershall Gas GmbH )
 against Stadt Detmold on the following questions:                           Are agreements of the kind described in Questions 1
                                                                             and 2 between local authorities and natural gas supply
                                                                             undertakings, eliminating competition in the local
 1 . Does Article 85 of the EC Treaty render invalid an                      supply of natural gas, to be deemed to affect the
       agreement under which a local authority grants a                      development of trade to an extent contrary to the
       supply undertaking, which is legally independent but                  interest of the Community ?
       owned by it, the exclusive right to use its public roads
       to lay and maintain mains for the direct supply of
       natural gas to end-users and thereby de facto
       eliminates competition in supply within its area, where
       that agreement is one of a number of similar
       (concession ) agreements which — also in conjunction
       with demarcation agreements between supply                       Appeal brought on 15 May 1997 by L. B. Rasmussen
       undertakings — partition off entire national supply              against the judgment delivered on 18 March 1997 by the
       markets from competition within the gas sector by                Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
       domestic or Community competitors ?                              European Communities in Case T-35/96 between L. B.
                                                                        Rasmussen and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
  2 . In the circumstances set out in Question 1 , does
       Article 85 of the EC Treaty render invalid an                                           ( Case C-188/97 P)
       agreement concluded by a local authority with a                                            ( 97/C 212/31 )
       supply undertaking concerning the laying of a natural
       gas transit main through its municipal area, under
       which it obliges that supply undertaking not to use              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 March
        that main for the direct supply of natural gas to end           1997 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
 ---pagebreak--- No C 212/ 18          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12 . 7 . 97
of the European Communities in Case T-35/96 between                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
L. B. Rasmussen and the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                — annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 408/97 of
the European Communities on 15 May 1997 by L. B.                          24 February 1997 on the conclusion of an Agreement
Rasmussen, represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the                         on cooperation in the sea fisheries sector between the
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                            European Community and the Islamic Republic of
Luxembourg at the Chambers of the latter, 180 Route de                    Mauritania and laying down provisions for its
Longwy.                                                                   implementation (*),
The appellant claims that the Court should:                           — order the Council to pay the costs .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
     18 March 1997 in Case T-35/96 (') in its entirety,               — Infringement of Article 228 of the EC Treaty: the
     including the ruling on costs,                                       Council could not conclude the agreement with
                                                                          Mauritania without first seeking and obtaining the
— annul the Commission's decision to annul the vacancy                    European Parliament's assent in accordance with the
     notice procedure for post COM/116/94,                                second subparagraph of Article 228 ( 3 ) of the EC
                                                                          Treaty. The agreement in question has important
                                                                          budgetary implications on account of the fact that the
— annul the decision to reserve the post at issue in that                 financial compensation provided for Mauritania alone
     vacancy notice for nationals of new Member States,                   amounts     to  a   share   in excess  of 20 %    of the
     and to publish a notice of Open Competition COM/A/                   appropriations under budget heading B7-8 0 0
     929 ( Head of Unit V.F.3 ),                                          ( International fisheries agreements ) provided for each
                                                                          financial year concerned hitherto .
— order the Commission to pay compensation for non                   — Breach of essential procedural requirements
     material damage,                                                     (consultation procedure not in compliance with the
                                                                          Treaty and no statement of reasons regarding the
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  Commission 's proposed amendment of the legal basis ).
                                                                      O OJ No L 62, 4 . 3 . 1997, p. 1 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Infringement of Articles 4, 5 , 7, 25 , 27, 29 and 45 of the
Staff Regulations, the principle of non-retroactivity, and of
the obligation to have due regard for the welfare of
officials, and misuse of powers, in that the Court of First           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
Instance gave faulty and insufficient reasoning in support            Première Instance de Namur by judgment of that court of
of provisions of the contested judgment and failed to reply           14 May 1997 in the case of Christelle Deliège v. ASBL
to arguments and pleas in law of the parties.                         Ligue Francophone de Judo et Disciplines Associées, ASBL
                                                                                Ligue Belge de Judo and François Pacquée
                                                                                ( Case C-191/97)
 n OJ No C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997, p . 14 .
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/33 )
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
                                                                      Premiere Instance de Namur ( Court of First Instance,
Action brought on 16 May 1997 by the European                         Namur) of 14 May 1997, which was received at the Court
   Parliament against the Council of the European Union               Registry on 20 May 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                      case of Christelle Deliege v. ASBL Ligue Francophone de
                         ( Case C-189/97 )
                                                                      Judo et Disciplines Associees, ASBL Ligue Beige de Judo
                           ( 97/C 212/32 )                            and Francois Pacquee on the following question :
                                                                      Whether or not it is contrary to the Treaty of Rome, in
 An action against the Council of the European Union was              particular Articles 59, 85 and 86 of the Treaty, to require
 brought before the Court of Justice of the European                  a professional or semi-professional athlete or a person
 Communities on 16 May 1997 by the European                           aspiring to professional or semi-professional activity to be
 Parliament, represented by Gregorio Garzon Clariana,                 authorized by his federation in order to be able to
 Jurisconsult, C. Pennera, Head of its Legal Service, and H.          compete in an international competition in which national
 Kriick, also of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an         teams are not taking part.
 address for service in Luxembourg at the European
 Parliament, Mail and Registry Service, Batiment Tour.


title: Case C-564/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 6 December 2012 — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA and Facet SA v Guillaume Delmatti

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 6 December 2012 — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA and Facet SA v Guillaume Delmatti
   (Case C-564/12)
   2013/C 38/19
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA, Facet SA

      Defendant: Guillaume Delmatti

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 22 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers, (1) interpreted in the light of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (2) prohibit the existence and application of standard terms in credit agreements whereby the consumer acknowledges that the creditor’s obligations have been fulfilled?

               2.

               Do the general principle of the effectiveness of Community law and Articles 22 and 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC preclude the creditor’s being able to establish proof of fulfilment of its pre-contractual and contractual obligations solely by means of the standard terms in credit agreements whereby the consumer acknowledges that those obligations have been fulfilled, without producing before the court the documents issued by the creditor and supplied to the borrower?

      (1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

      (2)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Judgment of the Court of 22 September 2016 in Case E-29/15 — Sorpa bs. v The Competition Authority (Abuse of a dominant position — Notion of undertaking — Cooperative agencies established by municipalities — Waste management — Services of general economic interest — Dissimilar conditions applied to equivalent transactions with other trading parties — Price discrimination)

text:
               20.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/7

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 22 September 2016
   in Case E-29/15
   Sorpa bs. v The Competition Authority
   (Abuse of a dominant position — Notion of undertaking — Cooperative agencies established by municipalities — Waste management — Services of general economic interest — Dissimilar conditions applied to equivalent transactions with other trading parties — Price discrimination)
   (2017/C 123/08)
   In Case E-29/15, Sorpa bs. v The Competition Authority — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Supreme Court of Iceland (Hæstiréttur Íslands) concerning the interpretation of the EEA Agreement, and in particular Article 54 thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 22 September 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               A municipality may constitute an undertaking within the meaning of Article 54 EEA when it engages in an economic activity, which consists in the offering of goods or services on the market. In order to determine whether an activity such as waste management is economic, account must be taken of the existence of competition with private entities. In that regard, the fact that the fee received for the provision of waste management services cannot exceed the costs incurred must be balanced against the existence of competition on the market.

               2.

               Waste management may constitute a service of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 59(2) EEA. It is for the referring court to determine whether the application of Article 54 EEA would make it impossible for the municipalities to provide the waste management services they have been entrusted with, or to provide them under economically acceptable conditions.

               3.

               In order to determine whether a public entity constitutes an undertaking within the meaning of the EEA competition rules when it provides waste management services, it is irrelevant whether that entity is a municipality or a cooperative agency entered into by several municipalities.

               4.

               Article 54 EEA does not apply to anti-competitive conduct which is required of undertakings by national legislation, or if national legislation creates a legal framework which itself eliminates any possibility of competitive activity on their part. However, Article 54 EEA may apply if national legislation does not preclude undertakings from engaging in autonomous conduct which prevents, restricts or distorts competition.

               5.

               Should an EEA State, by national legislation, grant public entities a derogation from the application of the EEA competition rules, for instance by granting them special or exclusive rights, it must do so in accordance with the EEA competition rules, in particular with Article 59(1) EEA.

               6.

               The owners of a municipal cooperative may be regarded as the trading parties of that cooperative within the meaning of Article 54(2)(c) EEA, unless they form one undertaking with that cooperative.

               7.

               By granting its owners a discount which it denies to its other customers, a dominant undertaking places those other customers at a competitive disadvantage within the meaning of Article 54(2)(c) EEA, provided that they compete with the dominant undertaking’s owners on a market upstream or downstream of the dominated market.


title: Case T-48/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  6 December 2005  — Brouwerij Haacht v Commission (Competition — Cartels — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Effective capacity of the offender to cause significant damage to other operators — Attenuating circumstances — Leniency Notice)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/28

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 December 2005 — Brouwerij Haacht v Commission
   (Case T-48/02) (1)

   (Competition - Cartels - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Effective capacity of the offender to cause significant damage to other operators - Attenuating circumstances - Leniency Notice)
   (2006/C 36/60)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Brouwerij Haacht NV (Boortmeerbeek, Belgium) (represented by: Y. van Gerven, F. Louis and H. Viaene, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet and W. Wils, Agents)
   Application for
   annulment of, and in the alternative for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant by, Article 4 of Commission Decision 2003/569/EC of 5 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/37.614/F3 PO/Interbrew and Alken-Maes) (OJ 2003 L 200, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the application;

               2)

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 4.5.2002.