title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 23 February 1995 in Case T-488/93: Hanseatische Industrie-Beteiligungen GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities (Declining of jurisdiction)

text:
 13 . 5 . 95         EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 119/11
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               declaration that the national proceedings giving rise to the
                                                                       attachment order were unlawful — the Court of First
                        (Third Chamber)
                                                                       Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts,
                      of 28 March 1995                                 President, R. Schintgen and R. Garcίa-Valdecasas, Judges;
in Case T-12/94 : Frédéric Daffix v. Commission of the                 B. Pastor, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 March
                   European Communities (*)                            1 995 , in which it:
       (Officiais — Removal from post — Statement of
                               reasons)                                1 , rejects the requests made by the applicant in the
                                                                             documents dated 10 and 20 December 1994;
                           ( 95/C 119/26 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                       2 , dismisses the application;
In Case T- 1 2/94: Frédéric Daffix, a former official of the           3 , orders each party to bear its own costs, including those
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                          relating to the application for interim measures.
Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure
Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in              (M OJ No C 263 , 29 . 9 . 1993 .
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue
 Glesener, against Commission of the European
 Communities (Agents: D. Gouloussis and B. Cambier) —
application for the annulment of the Commission decision
of 18 March 1993 removing the applicant from his post and,
in so far as is necessary, annulment of the implied decision                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
rejecting the applicant's complaint — the Court of First                                     of 23 February 1995
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Biancarelli,
President of the Chamber, C. P. Briët and C. W. Bellamy,              in Case T-488/93 : Hanseatische Industrie-Beteiligungen
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on                     GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
28 March 1995 , in which it:                                                               (Declining ofjurisdiction)
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/28 )
 1 , annuls the Commission decision of 18 March 1993
      removing the applicant from his post;                                            (Language of the case: German)
2 , orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                      In Case T-488/93 : Hanseatische Industrie-Beteiligungen
                                                                      GmbH, having its registered office in Bremen ( Germany ),
 (M OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
                                                                      represented by Gerhard Wiedemann and Jan-Peter Hix, of
                                                                      the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                      at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8—10, Rue Mathias Hardt,
                                                                      against Commission of the European Communities ( Agents:
                                                                      B. Smulders and J. Grunwald ) — application for annulment
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              of Commission Decision 93/412/EEC of 6 April 1993
                                                                      concerning aid awarded by the German Government to
                      of 29 March 1995
                                                                      Hibeg and by Hibeg via Krupp GmbH to Bremer Vulkan
in Case T-497/93: Anne Hogan v. Court of Justice of the               AG, facilitating the sale of Krupp Atlas Elektronik GmbH
                   European Communites 0 )                            from Krupp GmbH to Bremer Vulkan AG ( 2 ) — the
(Officials — Deduction from remuneration — Protocol                   Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber, Extended
on the Privileges and Immunities of the European                      Composition), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,
                          Communities)                                R. Schintgen, C. P. Briët, R. Garcίa-Valdecasas and C. W.
                                                                      Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
                          ( 95/C 119/27)
                                                                      23 February 1995 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                      follows :
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                      1 , the Court of First Instance declines jurisdiction in
In Case T-497/93 : Anne Hogan, official at the European                     Case T-488/93, (Hanseatische Industrie-Beteiligungen
Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented by                          GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities,
Giancarlo Lattanzi, of the Massa-Carrare Bar, with an                       in order to enable the Court of Justice to rule on the
address for service in Luxembourg at 33 Rue Godchaux v.                     applications for annulment;
Court of Justice of the European Communities (Agents:
L. Maggioni, N. Lierow and P. Ferrari ) — application for
                                                                     2,     the costs are reserved.
the annulment of the decisions of the Court of Justice
concerning a sum deducted from the applicant's
remuneration pursuant to an attachement order, for the                t 1 ) OJ No C 222 , 18 . 8 . 1993 .
reimbursement of that sum, for compensation in respect of             (2 ) OJ No L 185 , 28 . 7 . 1993 , p . 43 .
the material and non-material damage which the applicant
claims to have suffered and, in the alternative, for a


title: Case T-287/14: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Schaeffler Technologies v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/19

         Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Schaeffler Technologies v Commission
   (Case T-287/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 245/23)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Schaeffler Technologies GmbH & Co. KG (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, M. Ringel, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               3.

               Schaeffler Technologies GmbH & Co. KG shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-483/10: Action brought on 6 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/25

         Action brought on 6 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-483/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/43
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and R. Vidal Puig, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1), 11(2), 14(1) and 30(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, (1) and under Article 10(7) of Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways. (2)

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission submits that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to comply with the following provisions of the above-mentioned directives:

               1.

               Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC, in so far as the level of railway infrastructure charges is ‘determined’ exclusively by the State authorities, the function of the ‘infrastructure manager’, Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF), being reduced to merely collecting the charges;

               2.

               Article 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC, since the charging scheme introduced by the Spanish authorities does not set out any performance scheme in accordance with the criteria laid down in that article;

               3.

               Article 30(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC, since the Spanish legislation does not ensure that the regulatory body (el Comité de Regulación Ferroviaria) is sufficiently independent vis-à-vis ADIF (the railway infrastructure manager) and RENFE-Operadora (a railway undertaking attached to the Spanish Ministry of Public Works);

               4.

               Article 10(7) of Directive 91/440/EEC, because the regulatory body (el Comité de Regulación Ferroviaria) lacks the means necessary to perform the function conferred on it under that article of monitoring the competition in the rail services markets;

               5.

               Article 13(2) and Article 14(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC in so far as the Spanish legislation lays down criteria for the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity which are discriminatory; these may in fact result in the allocation of train paths for a longer term than one working timetable period; the criteria are also lacking in detail.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29.

      (2)  OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25.


title: Case T-330/99: Action brought on 23 November 1999 by Spedition Wilhelm Rotermund GmbH i.L. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 63/26                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.3.2000
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              Action brought on 23 November 1999 by Spedition
                                                                         Wilhelm Rotermund GmbH i.L. against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
— annul the contested decision;
                                                                                (Case T-330/99)
— in the alternative, declare to be unlawful and therefore
     inapplicable Article 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the                                  (2000/C 63/52)
     European Parliament, in conjunction with Article 30
     thereof;
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
— order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
     proceedings.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 23 November 1999 by Spedition
                                                                         Wilhelm Rotermund GmbH i.L., of Flensburg (Germany),
                                                                         represented by Axel Suhr, Rechtsanwalt, of Hamburg (Germ-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          any), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         Chambers of Messrs De Bandt, van Hecke, Lagae & Loesch, 11
                                                                         Rue Goethe.
By the present action, the Members of the European Parliament
on the ‘Emma Bonino List’, and the List as such — a European
manifestation of the political party to which they belong —              The applicant claims that the Court should:
seek annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 14 September
1999 declaring that Article 29(1) of the Parliament’s Rules of           (1) annul the decision of the Commission of the European
Procedure precludes the creation of a group entitled ‘technical               Communities of 22 July 1999 (REM 22/98);
group of independent Members — mixed group’ comprising
inter alia the applicants.
                                                                         (2) in its judgment, require the defendant, pursuant to
                                                                              Article 233 EC, to grant the original applications for
                                                                              remission; and
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
raised in Case T-222/99 J.C. Martinez and Charles de Gaulle (1).
                                                                         (3) order the defendant to pay the costs.
In particular, it is submitted that the Parliament is in breach of
the fundamental principles of democracy, non-discrimination              Pleas in law and main arguments
and proportionality.
                                                                         The applicant forwarded goods from Germany to Spain as a
                                                                         principal in the context of the external Community transit
The applicants also submit that Articles 29 and 30 of the                procedure. Customs investigations indicated that the goods
Parliament’s Rules of Procedure are unlawful, should the Court           had not been properly presented at the customs office of
of First Instance find that preclusion of the group in question          destination, and that completion of the transit procedures had
does not follow from the incorrect — in their view —                     merely been feigned. By its contested decision, the Commission
interpretation espoused in the contested decision but directly           refused the application made by the German authorities for
from Article 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure, possibly in                remission of payment by the applicant of the customs debt
conjunction with Article 30 thereof. They maintain that the              arising. From a legal standpoint, the applicant bases its claim
faults which allegedly vitiate the contested decision are directly       in particular on the assertion that the situation represents a
attributable to the above provisions.                                    special case within the meaning of Article 899 of Regulation
                                                                         (EEC) No 2454/93, since it was legitimately entitled to expect
                                                                         that administrative tasks would not be performed by customs
                                                                         officials acting fraudulently. That was what happened in the
(1) Not yet published.                                                   present case, however, since the fraudulent procedures could
                                                                         not have been carried out without the complicity of a servant
                                                                         of the customs authority concerned.


title: Case C-3/01 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 26 October 2000 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-41/96 between Bayer AG, supported by the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries' Associations and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure e.V.

text:
10.3.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 79/15
      Finally, the Court of First Instance took no account of             Pleas in law and main arguments
      the fact that the dependence of wholesalers on the
      pharmaceutical manufacturers leads to a situation com-
      parable to cases of selective distribution systems. As in           —     Excessively restrictive interpretation of the concept of an
      those cases, where continuous business relations exist the                agreement to prohibit exports within the meaning of
      imposition of quotas is generally capable of hindering the                Article 85(1) of the Treaty, in that, in this case, the Court
      free movement of goods inside the European Communi-                       saw the requirements for an intended prohibition on
      ties and adversely affecting competition in the Member                    exports by the manufacturer as being fulfilled only if the
      States.                                                                   manufacturer subsequently monitored whether traders had
                                                                                exported products and reduced supplies as a sanction in
                                                                                that event (without taking account of the fact that, in this
                                                                                case, Bayer applied the sanction of reducing supplies in
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                                  advance, as a preventive measure, when it appeared likely
                                                                                that exports would take place).
                                                                          —     Excessively restrictive interpretation of the concept of an
                                                                                agreement to prohibit exports within the meaning of
                                                                                Article 85(1) of the Treaty, in that, in this case, the Court
                                                                                saw the requirements for an intended prohibition on
                                                                                exports by the manufacturer as being fulfilled only if the
                                                                                manufacturer demanded a particular line of conduct from
                                                                                its dealers or attempted to force their consent to the
Appeal brought on 5 January 2001 by the Commission of                           implementation of its policy designed to reduce parallel
the European Communities against the judgment deliver-                          imports (without taking account of the fact that the
ed on 26 October 2000 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended                            dealers understood and could only understand Bayer’s supply
Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-                        behaviour as a demand for a certain line of conduct,
pean Communities in Case T-41/96 between Bayer AG,                              namely the placing of orders henceforward only in
supported by the European Federation of Pharmaceutical                          respect of national needs).
Industries’ Associations and the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities, supported by the Bundesverband der
                 Arzneimittel-Importeure e.V.                             —     Distortion of evidence or failure to take it into account,
                                                                                in that — although the opposite is immediately obvious
                                                                                from the files — the Court held it unproven that the
                          (Case C-3/01 P)                                       wholesalers wished to pretend to Bayer that they were
                                                                                henceforth ordering only in respect of national needs.
                          (2001/C 79/26)
                                                                          —     Erroneous interpretation of the concept of an agreement
                                                                                within the meaning of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty in
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 October 2000                     that the Court saw the requirements for a concurrence of
by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of                     wills as not being fulfilled because the declared will of the
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-41/96 (1)                  wholesalers (ordering only for national needs) did not
between Bayer AG, supported by the European Federation of                       correspond with the real will of the wholesalers (ordering
Pharmaceutical Industries’ Associations and the Commission                      for export purposes also).
of the European Communities, supported by the Bundesver-
band der Arzneimittel-Importeure e.V. was brought before the
                                                                          —     Erroneous application of Article 85(1) of the Treaty, in
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 January
                                                                                that — despite the fact that Bayer’s supply policy designed
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                                to prevent parallel imports formed part of continuous
represented by K. Wiedner and W. Wils, acting as agents,
                                                                                business relations in the context of general agreements
assisted by H.-J. Freund, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for
                                                                                previously made, and despite clear parallels between the
service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                distribution of pharmaceutical products in France and
                                                                                Spain and selective distribution systems — the Court
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                     additionally required that a subjective element on the part
                                                                                of the dealers be established, having as its subject-matter
                                                                                a concurrence of wills in relation to the implementation
1.    set aside in its entirety the judgment of the Court of First              of the policy referred to.
      Instance of 26 October 2000 in Case T-41/96 (1) and
      dismiss the claim by Bayer for the annulment of Com-
      mission Decision 96/478/EC of 10 January 1996 relating
      to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case             (1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
      IV/34.279/F3 — Adalat);
2.    order Bayer to pay the costs before the Court of Justice
      and the Court of First Instance.


title: Case T-426/04: Action brought on 20 October 2004 by Tramarin s.n.c. di Tramarin Andrea e Sergio against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/26

         Action brought on 20 October 2004 by Tramarin s.n.c. di Tramarin Andrea e Sergio against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-426/04)
   (2004/C 314/60)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 October 2004 by Tramarin s.n.c. di Tramarin Andrea e Sergio, represented by Michele Arcangelo Calabrese, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the part of Commission letter D/53186, D/(00)PI D/672, of 29 May 2000, described in the previous action;

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 12 July 2000, granting authorisation without raising objections to State aid scheme No 715/99 — Italy — Measures in support of business in depressed areas of the country;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant in the present case, in the same way as in Case T-98/04 S.I.M.S.A. and Others v Commission (1), challenges, in addition to the decision authorising State aid scheme No N 715/99, also challenged in that case, the decision contained in that part of the letter from the defendant of 29 May 2000, in reply to a proposal put forward by the Italian authorities to the Commission at a meeting in Brussels on 16 May 2000 that a transitional rule intended to prevent a lack of continuity between the preceding scheme and the new scheme be included in the State aid scheme constituted by Italian Law No 488/92 and by its implementing provisions, because of the expectation of initiatives taken by the category of undertakings which had not yet submitted the application in the first notice to be instituted under the new scheme, but which had already embarked upon an investment project, by which it requested those Italian authorities to withdraw that proposal.
   In support of its claims, the applicant alleges an infringement of:

               —

               essential procedural requirements, in failing to open the formal inquiry procedure laid down by Article 88(2) EC;

               —

               Article 4(4) and 7(5) and the second and third paragraphs of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (2);

               —

               the procedural guarantees in favour of persons interested in a State aid.

         In particular, the applicant submits that the request to withdraw a proposal or the part of a proposal for a State aid scheme, if upheld by the Member State, has the same legal effect as a negative decision under Article 7(5) of Regulation (EC) No 659/99, with the significant difference that, whilst a negative decision is adopted at the end of a procedure full of procedural guarantees for the parties concerned, the request to withdraw, followed by the acquiescence by the Member State, allows the Commission to adopt decisions not to raise objections which in fact have the content of negative decisions, without however having the substantive form of negative decisions. Further, it allows the Commission to deal with those decisions pursuant to the publication rules laid down for decisions not to raise objections, thereby treating publication on its web site as sufficient, instead of applying the rules which would apply to a decision to open a formal inquiry: publication in full in the Official Journal of the European Communities, a request to submit observations and the duty to take account of those observations before adopting a reasoned negative decision.
   As for the decision of 12 July 2000, it is alleged to be invalid for the same reasons as the letter of 29 May 2000, since it is the decision by which, if that letter is annulled, the infringements of the abovementioned guarantees take effect.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004, p. 83.

      (2)  OJ L 83 of 27.3.1999, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 May 2001 in Case T-348/00: Artin Barth v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Household allowance — Recovery of sums overpaid)

text:
15.9.2001              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 259/11
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Industriale Romagnola SpA), whose registered office is at
                                                                           Cesena (Italy), represented by B. O’Connor, solicitor, and
                          of 30 May 2001                                   I. Vigliotti and P. Crocetta, lawyers, with an address for service
                                                                           in Luxembourg, supported by Comité Européen des Fabricants
in Case T-348/00: Artin Barth v Commission of the                          de Sucre, established in Brussels, represented by B. Garcı́a
                   European Communities (1)                                Porras, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                           against Council of the European Union (Agents: I. Diez Parra
(Officials — Household allowance — Recovery of sums                        and J.-P. Hix), supported by Commission of the European
                              overpaid)                                    Communities (Agent: P. Ziotti) — application for, first,
                                                                           annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1580/96 of 30 July
                          (2001/C 259/17)                                  1996 fixing, for the 1996/97 marketing year, the derived
                                                                           intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention price for
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                           raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B beet, and the
                                                                           amount of compensation for storage costs (OJ 1996 L 206,
In Case T-348/00: Artin Barth, former official of the Com-                 p. 9), and a finding that certain provisions of Council
mission of the European Communities, residing in Lenzkirch                 Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the
(Germany), represented by E.J.H. Moons and J. Vercammen,                   common organization of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                1981 L 177, p. 4) are inapplicable, as amended by Council
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall                 Regulation (EC) No 1101/95 of 24 April 1995 (OJ 1995
and W. Wils) — application for annulment of the decision of                L 110, p. 1) and, secondly, a claim for compensation to make
the Commission of 17 August 2000 withdrawing, with effect                  good the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants —
from 1 October 1998, the household allowance of which the                  the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of
applicant had been in receipt until then and recovery of sums              B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
overpaid by virtue of that allowance during the period running             H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 11 May 2001, the
from 1 October 1998 to 28 February 2000 — the Court of                     operative part of which is as follows:
First Instance (Single Judge: M. Vilaras); Blanca Pastor, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 May                1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in so
2001, in which it:                                                               far as it seeks the annulment of Article 1 (f) of Regulation
                                                                                No 1580/96.
1.    Dismisses the application.
                                                                           2.    The application is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foun-
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                dation in law inasmuch as it seeks an order requiring the
                                                                                Council to make good the damage allegedly caused to the
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.01.                                                          applicants by the adoption and application of Regulation
                                                                                No 1580/96, cited above.
                                                                           3.    The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred
                                                                                by the Council.
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                4.    The Commission and the Comité Européen des Fabricants de
                                                                                Sucre shall bear their own costs.
                          of 11 May 2001
in Case T-178/96: Eridania SpA and Others v Council of                     (1) OJ 1997 C 54.
                     the European Union (1)
(Sugar — System of prices — Regionalisation — Deficit
areas — Classification of Italy — Marketing year 1996 —
1997 — Regulations No 1580/96 and No 1785/81 —                                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action for annulment — Manifest inadmissibility — Claim
    for damages manifestly lacking any foundation in law)                                             of 2 May 2001
                          (2001/C 259/18)                                  in Case T-208/00: Jeremı́as Augusto Barleycorn Mongolue
                                                                           and Marc Boixader Rivas against the Council of the
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                               European Union and the European Parliament (1)
In Case T-178/96: Società Eridiana SpA, whose registered                   (Officials — Application for annulment — Conditions of
office is at Genoa (Italy), Società ISI (Industria Saccarifera             admission to a competition — Spanish technical engineers —
Italiana Agroindustriale SpA), whose registered office is at               Type of university qualification required — Inadmissibility)
Padua (Italy), Società Sadam Zuccherifici, a division of S.E.C.I.
(Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA), whose regis-                                         (2001/C 259/19)
tered office is at Bologna (Italy), Società Sadam Castiglionese
SpA, whose registered office is at Bologna (Italy), Società                                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
Sadam Abruzzo SpA, whose registered office is at Bologna
(Italy), Società Zuccherificio del Molise SpA, whose registered            In Case T-208/00, Jeremı́as Augusto Barleycorn Mongolue and
office is at Termoli (Italy), Società S.F.I.R. (Società Fondiaria          Marc Boixader Rivas residing in Madrid, represented by


title: Case C-560/11: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy)) — Danilo Debiasi v Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Parma (Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Reply leaving room for no reasonable doubt — Taxation — VAT — Article 17(2)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive — Deduction of input tax paid — Public or private healthcare establishments engaged in an exempt activity — National legislation excluding deduction of the tax on the purchase of goods or services used in exempt activities — Deductible proportion)

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/2

         Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy)) — Danilo Debiasi v Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Parma
   (Case C-560/11) (1)

   (Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Reply leaving room for no reasonable doubt - Taxation - VAT - Article 17(2)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive - Deduction of input tax paid - Public or private healthcare establishments engaged in an exempt activity - National legislation excluding deduction of the tax on the purchase of goods or services used in exempt activities - Deductible proportion)
   2013/C 55/02
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Danilo Debiasi

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Parma

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma — Interpretation of Article 17(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Deduction of input tax — Public or private healthcare establishments engaged in an exempt activity — National legislation excluding the deduction of tax relating to the purchase of goods or services used in the said exempt activities

      Operative part of the order

   Articles 17(2) and (5) and 19 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not permit the deduction of input value added tax paid for the purchase of goods and services used for the requirements of exempt activities and which provides, consequently, that the right of a hybrid taxable person to deduct that tax is calculated on the basis of a proportion corresponding to the ratio of the amount of the transactions in respect of which there is a right to deduct and the total amount of the transactions carried out over the course of the year, including the exempt medical-healthcare services.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case C-323/14: Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Helm AG v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/23

         Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Helm AG v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond
   (Case C-323/14) (1)

   (2016/C 279/30)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.


title: Case C-278/10: Action brought on 3 June 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/31

         Action brought on 3 June 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-278/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/43
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A.. Margelis and I. Dimitriou)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2008/103/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators as regards placing batteries and accumulators on the market, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of those measures, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit for transposing Directive 2008/103/EC into domestic law expired on 5 January 2009.

      (1)  OJ L 327 of 5.12.2008, p. 7


title: Case T-261/15: Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Spirig Pharma v OHIM (Daylong)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/39

         Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Spirig Pharma v OHIM (Daylong)
   (Case T-261/15)
   (2015/C 245/47)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Spirig Pharma (Egerkingen, Switzerland) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: figurative mark containing the word element ‘Daylong’ — Application for registration No 12 537 627

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2015 in Case R 2455/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs, including those of the applicant in the course of the proceedings before the fourth Board of Appeal of the Office.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Article 75 of the same regulation;

               —

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


title: Case T-289/05: Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Arcangelo Milella and Another against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/36

         Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Arcangelo Milella and Another against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-289/05)
   (2005/C 229/76)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 July 2005 by Arcangelo Milella, resident in Niederanven (Luxembourg), and Delfina Campanella, resident in Luxembourg, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, lawyer.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of 18 April 2005 of the Director-General for Personnel and Administration of the Commission in so far as it specifies that the d'Hondt rule is a method for allocating seats of representatives of the Local Staff Committee for Luxembourg (LCSL) on the Central Staff Committee (CSC) in accordance with the proportionality principle, and requests the LCSL to bear that rule in mind for the purpose of adopting a new decision as regards the appointment of its members to the CSC;

               —

               establish the illegality of the decisions of 26 April and 10 May 2005 of the Local Staff Committee for Luxembourg allocating its representatives to the Central Staff Committee in so far as they allocate five seats to list No 2 and two seats to list No 1 in accordance with the d'Hondt method, and not four seats to list No 2 and three seats to list No 1 in accordance with the largest remainder method;

               —

               annul the decision of 11 May 2005 of the Director-General for Personnel and Administration confirming that the new appointments of its representatives to the Central Staff Committee made by the Local Staff Committee for Luxembourg on 26 April and 10 May 2005 had been properly effected;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The dispute concerns the appointment of representatives of the Local Staff Committee of the Commission in Luxembourg (LCSL) to the Central Staff Committee of the Commission (CSC) following the elections of 24 November 2004. By letter of 18 April 2005, the Director-General of the DG ADMIN of the Commission pointed out to the chairpersons of the LCSL and CSC that he considered the ‘d'Hondt rule’, which is a mathematical method chosen to divide the seats within the CSC amongst the lists put forward for the elections, to be in accordance with the proportionality principle. However, by that same letter, the Director annulled, on separate grounds, the appointments of the representatives to the CSC. Following that letter, the LCSL, on 26 April 2005, appointed new representatives, in accordance with the d'Hondt method.
   By letter of 11 May 2005, the Director-General of the DG ADMIN confirmed that he considered those appointments to be in order.
   The applicants, officials of the European Commission posted in Luxembourg, contend that those decisions should be annulled. They claim that there has been an infringement of the final paragraph of Article 14 of the Regulations of 27 April 1988 on the composition and functioning of the Staff Committee adopted by the Commission, and of the rule that the allocation of seats within the CSC should be in proportion to the allocation of seats on the LCSL and of the principle that the CSC be representative. The applicants allege that a different method of seat allocation, namely the largest remainder method, should have been adopted and would have resulted in a more representative allocation.
   The applicants also contend that the LCSL misused its powers. They submit that the majority of the LCSL sought artificially to increase its representation to the detriment of list No 1, and the Appointing Authority erred in law and committed a manifest error of assessment in approving the use of the d'Hondt method.
   The applicants also claim that the Appointing Authority infringed the principle of equal treatment in so far as it departed from its previous practice, under which it considered the largest remainder method to be the only method capable of guaranteeing proportionality.
   Finally, the applicants allege that the Appointing Authority infringed the third paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations and Article 16(1) and (2) of the Regulations of the LCSL on the ground that the Appointing Authority forced the LCSL to choose the d'Hondt method or, at least, allowed it to encroach upon the competence of the General Staff Assembly, which is the only body competent to decide upon the applicable method.


title: Case C-516/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 April 2017 — Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV v Akcros Chemicals Ltd, European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets in tin stabilisers and in ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Price fixing, market allocation and exchange of commercially sensitive information — Whether the unlawful conduct of the subsidiaries may be attributed to the parent company — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 25(1) — Limitation period for the imposition of penalties on subsidiaries — Effects on the legal position of the parent company)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 April 2017 — Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV v Akcros Chemicals Ltd, European Commission
   (Case C-516/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets in tin stabilisers and in ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Price fixing, market allocation and exchange of commercially sensitive information - Whether the unlawful conduct of the subsidiaries may be attributed to the parent company - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 25(1) - Limitation period for the imposition of penalties on subsidiaries - Effects on the legal position of the parent company))
   (2017/C 202/03)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV (represented by: C. Swaak and R. Wesseling, advocaten)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Akcros Chemicals Ltd, European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH and Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 1996 in Joined Cases C-320/94, C-328/94, C-329/94, C-337/94, C-338/94 and C-339/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio): Reti Televisive Italiane SpA (RTI), in the presence of Publitalia '80, v. Ministero delle Poste e Telecomunicazioni, in the presence of Federazione Italiana Editori Giornali (FIEG), Coordinamento delle Associazioni per la Difesa dell'Ambiente e dei Diritti degli Utenti e Consumatori (Codacons) and Associazione Utenti Radiotelevisivi and Others (Interpretation - Directive 89/552/EEC - Television broadcasting activities)

text:
8 . 3 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 74/1
                                                                    I
                                                             (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  Ministero delle Poste e Telecomunicazioni ( Case C-337/
                         (Sixth Chamber)                               94 ), in the presence of Federazione Italiana Editori Gior
                                                                       nali (FIEG), Coordinamento delle Associazioni per la Dife
                      of 12 December 1996                              sa dell'Ambiente e dei Diritti degli Utenti e Consumatori
in Joined Cases C-320/94, C-328/94, C-329/94, C-337/                   ( Codacons ) and Associazione Utenti Radiotelevisivi, and
94, C-338/94 and C-339/94 (reference for a preliminary                 between Radio Italia Solo Musica Sri and Others, and
ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del                 Ministero delle Poste e Telecomunicazioni ( Case C-338/
Lazio ): Reti Televisive Italiane SpA ( RTI), in the presence          94 ), in the presence of Federazione Italiana Editori Gior
of Publitalia '80, v. Ministero delle Poste e Telecomuni              nali (FIEG), and between GETE Sri, and Ministero delle
cazioni, in the presence of Federazione Italiana Editori               Poste e Telecomunicazioni ( Case C-339/94 ), in the
Giornali (FIEG ), Coordinamento delle Associazioni per                 presence of Federazione Italiana Editori Giornali ( FIEG )
la Difesa dell'Ambiente e dei Diritti degli Utenti e                   — on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/552/EEC
                                                                       of 3      October   1989   on the coordination of certain
Consumatori        ( Codacons ) and Associazione          Utenti
                  Radiotelevisivi and Others (')                       provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
                                                                       action in Member States concerning the pursuit of
(Interpretation — Directive 89/552/EEC — Television                    television broadcasting activities ( OJ No L 298 , 17. 10 .
                      broadcasting activities)                         1989, p. 23 ), and in particular of Article 17 ( 1 ) thereof,
                           ( 97/C 74/01 )                              concerning sponsoring, and of Articles 1 ( b ) and 18
                                                                       thereof, — the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed of: G. F.
                                                                       Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                       ( Rapporteur), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.
                                                                       Ragnemalm, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; D.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, gave a
           published in the European Court Reports)                    judgment on 12 December 1996, the operative part of
                                                                       which is as follows :
In Joined Cases C-320/94, C-328/94, C-329/94, C-337/94,
C-338/94 and C-339/94: reference to the Court under                    1 . Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on
Article 1 77 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunale Amministra                  the coordination of certain provisions laid down by
tivo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in                law, regulation or administrative action in Member
the proceedings pending before that court between Reti                      States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting
Televisive Italiane SpA ( RTI), in the presence of Publitalia               activities, and in particular Articles 1 (b) and 18
' 80 and Ministero delle Poste e Telecomunicazioni ( Case                   thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the
C-320/94 ), in the presence of Federazione Italiana Editori                 expression 'forms of advertisements such as direct
Giornali (FIEG ), Coordinamento delle Associazioni per la                   offers to the public' in Article 1 8 is used in the context
Difesa dell'Ambiente e dei Diritti degli Utenti e Consuma                  of the Community rules, with regard to the possibility
tori ( Codacons ) and Associazione Utenti Radiotelevisivi,                  of increasing maximum advertising time to 20% of
and between Radio Torre, and Ministero delle Poste e Te                    daily transmission time, by way of example.
lecomunicazioni ( Case C-328/94 ), in the presence of                       Consequently, it may also cover other forms of
Federazione Italiana Editori Giornali ( FIEG ), and between                 promotion, such as 'telepromotions ' which, like 'direct
Rete A Srl , and Ministero delle Poste e Telecomunicazioni                  offers to the public ', require more time than spot
( Case C-329/94 ), in the presence of Federazione Italiana                  advertisements on account of their method of
Editori Giornali ( FIEG ), Coordinamento delle Associazioni                 presentation.
per la Difesa dell'Ambiente e dei Diritti degli Utenti e
Consumatori ( Codacons ) and Associazione Utenti Radiote              2 . Directive 89/552/EEC, and in particular Article 17
levisivi and between Vallau Italiana Promomarket Srl, and                   (1 ) (b) thereof, must be interpreted as permitting the
 ---pagebreak--- No C 74/2            | EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8 . 3 . 97
     insertion of the sponsor's name or logo at times other               national of Member State B from that latter State to
     than the beginning and/or the end of the programme.                  Serbia or Montenegro on the ground that Member
                                                                          State A allows payment for such exports to be made
                                                                          only if the exports take place from its own territory
(') OJ No C 386, 31 . 12 . 1994, and                                      and they have been authorized by its own competent
    OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .                                           authorities pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1432/92,
                                                                          when the goods in question have been classified by the
                                                                          United Nations Sanctions Committee as products
                                                                          intended for strictly medical purposes and the
                                                                          competent authorities of Member State B have issued
                                                                          export authorizations for them in accordance with
                                                                          Regulation (EEC) No 1432/92 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                     2 . National measures which prove to be contrary to the
                                                                          common commercial policy provided for in Article 113
                       of 14 January 1997                                 of the Treaty and to the Community Regulations
                                                                          implementing that policy are justified under Article 234
in Case C-124/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 of the EEC Treaty only if they are necessary to ensure
the Court of Appeal ): The Queen, ex parte: Centro-Com                    that the Member State concerned performs its
         Sri v. HM Treasury and Bank of England (')                       obligations towards non-member countries under an
                                                                          agreement concluded prior to entry into force of the
(Foreign and security policy — Common commercial                          Treaty or prior to accession by that Member State.
policy — Blocking of funds — Sanctions against the
             Republics of Serbia and Montenegro)                     H OJ No C 174, 8 . 7. 1995 .
                           ( 97/C 74/02 )
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 14 January 1997
In Case C-124/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Court of Appeal ( England and                in Case C-169/95 : Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of
Wales ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                           the European Communities (')
before that court between the Queen, ex parte: Centro               (State aids — Aid for the construction of a steel foundry
Com Sri, and HM Treasury and Bank of England on the                                 in the Province of Teruel, Spain)
interpretation of Articles 113 and 234 of the EC Treaty
and Council Regulation (EEC ) No 1432/92 of 1 June                                             ( 97/C 74/03 )
1992 prohibiting trade between the European Economic
Community and the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
( OJ No L 151 , 3 . 6 . 1992, p. 4 ), — the Court composed
of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida and J. L. Murray, Presidents of
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), Advocate
General; F. G. Jacobs, Registrar: H. A. Riihl, Principal
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
Administrar, has given a judgment on 14 January 1997, in
which it rules :                                                     In Case C-169/95 : Kingdom of Spain ( Agents: Alberto
                                                                     Jose Navarro Gonzalez and Gloria Calvo Diaz ) v.
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities ( Agents:
                                                                     Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz and Paul Nemitz ) —
1 . The common commercial policy provided for in                     application for annulment of Commission Decision
     Article 113 of the EEC Treaty, as implemented by                95/438/EC of 14 March 1995 concerning investment aid
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 1432/92 of 1 June 1992              granted by Spain to the company Piezas y Rodajes SA, a
    prohibiting trade between the European Economic                  steel foundry located in Teruel province (Aragon ), Spain
     Community and the Republics of Serbia and                       ( OJ No L 257, 27. 10 . 1995 , p. 45 ), — the Court,
     Montenegro and by Council Regulation (EEC)                      composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, J. C.
     No 2603/69 of 20 December 1969 establishing                     Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray and L. Sevon,
     common rules for exports, precludes Member State A              Presidents of Chambers, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
    from adopting, for the purpose of ensuring effective             D. A. O. Edward, J.-P- Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), G.
     application of United Nations Security Council                  Hirsch, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; Advocate
     Resolution 757 (1992) measures prohibiting Serbian              General : G. Tesauro; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
     or Montenegran funds located in its territory from              for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 January
     being released in order to pay for goods exported by a          1997, in which it:


title: Case T-718/13: Action brought on 27 December 2013 — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/24

      Action brought on 27 December 2013 — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV)
      (Case T-718/13)
      (2014/C 71/44)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English

         Parties

         Applicant: The Directv Group, Inc. (El Segundo, United States of America) (represented by: F. Valentin, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bolloré SA (Érgue Gaberic, France)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 October 2013 given in Case R 1812/2012-2 and accordingly acknowledge the validity of the contested trade mark.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘DIRECTV’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 1 163 138

         Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

         Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

         Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked partially the Community trade mark

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and revoked the Community trade mark in its entirety

         Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15 CTMR


title: Case C-328/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 17 June 2013 — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund v Wirtschaftskammer Österreich — Fachverband der Autobus-, Luftfahrt- und Schifffahrtsunternehmungen

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 17 June 2013 — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund v Wirtschaftskammer Österreich — Fachverband der Autobus-, Luftfahrt- und Schifffahrtsunternehmungen
   (Case C-328/13)
   2013/C 274/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund

      Defendant: Wirtschaftskammer Österreich — Fachverband der Autobus-, Luftfahrt- und Schifffahrtsunternehmungen

      Questions referred

               (a)

               Is the wording of Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/23/EC, (1) according to which the ‘terms and conditions’ agreed in any collective agreement and applicable to the transferor must continue to be observed ‘on the same terms’ until the ‘date of termination or expiry of the collective agreement’, to be interpreted as also covering terms and conditions laid down by a collective agreement which have continuing effect indefinitely under national law, despite the termination of the collective agreement, until another collective agreement takes effect or the employees concerned have concluded new individual agreements?

               (b)

               Is Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/23/EC to be interpreted to the effect that ‘application of another collective agreement’ of the transferee is to be understood as including the continuing effect of the likewise terminated collective agreement of the transferee in the abovementioned sense?

      (1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.


title: Case C-568/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Assen (Netherlands) lodged on 22 December 2008 — 1. Combinatie Spijker Infrabouw/De Jonge Konstruktie; 2. Van Spijker Infrabouw B.V.; 3. De Jonge Konstruktie B.V. v Provincie Drenthe

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Assen (Netherlands) lodged on 22 December 2008 — 1. Combinatie Spijker Infrabouw/De Jonge Konstruktie; 2. Van Spijker Infrabouw B.V.; 3. De Jonge Konstruktie B.V. v Provincie Drenthe
   (Case C-568/08)
   (2009/C 69/39)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank Assen
   Parties to the main proceedings
   Applicants:

               1.

               Combinatie Spijker Infrabouw/De Jonge Konstruktie

               2.

               Van Spijker Infrabouw B.V.

               3.

               De Jonge Konstruktie B.V.

      Defendant: Provincie Drenthe
   Questions referred

               1

                           (a)

                           Must Article 1(1) and (3) and Article 2(1) and (6) of Directive 89/665/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that they have not been complied with if the legal protection to be afforded by national courts in disputes relating to tendering procedures governed by European law is impeded by the fact that conflicting decisions may arise under a system in which both administrative courts and civil courts may have jurisdiction with respect to the same decision and its consequences?

                           (b)

                           Is it permissible in this context for the administrative courts to be confined to forming an opinion and ruling on the tendering decision, and if so, why and/or under what conditions?

                           (c)

                           Is it permissible in this context for the Algemene wet bestuursrecht (Netherlands General Law on Administrative Law), which, as a rule, governs applications for access to the administrative courts, to exclude such applications in the case of decisions concerning the conclusion of a contract by the contracting authority with one of the tenderers, and if so, why and/or under what conditions?

                           (d)

                           Is the answer to Question 2 of relevance in this context?

               2

                           (a)

                           Must Article 1(1) and (3) and Article 2(1) and (6) of Directive 89/665/EEC be interpreted as meaning that they have not been complied with if the only procedure for obtaining a rapid decision is characterised by the fact that it is in principle geared to a rapid mandatory measure, that lawyers have no right to exchange views, that [no] evidence is, as a rule, presented in other than written form and that statutory rules on evidence are not applicable?

                           (b)

                           If not, does this also apply if the decision does not lead to the final determination of the legal situation and does not form part of a decision-making process leading to such a final decision?

                           (c)

                           Does it make a difference in this context if the decision is binding only on the parties to the proceedings, even though other parties may have an interest?

               3.

               Is it compatible with Directive 89/665/EEC for a court, in interim relief proceedings, to order the contracting public authority to take a tendering decision which is subsequently deemed, in proceedings on the substance, to be contrary to tendering rules under European law?

               4.

                           (a)

                           If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, must the contracting public authority be deemed liable in that regard, and if so, in what sense?

                           (b)

                           Does the same apply if the answer to that question is in the affirmative?

                           (c)

                           If that authority is required to pay damages, does Community law set criteria for determining and estimating those damages, and if so, what are they?

                           (d)

                           If the contracting public authority cannot be deemed liable, is it possible, under Community law, for some other person to be shown to be liable, and on what basis?

               5.

               If it in fact appears to be impossible, or extremely difficult, under national law and/or with the aid of the answers to the above questions to attribute liability, what must the national court do?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).


title: Case T-45/17: Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Kwang Yang Motor v EUIPO — Schmidt (CK1)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/38

         Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Kwang Yang Motor v EUIPO — Schmidt (CK1)
   (Case T-45/17)
   (2017/C 078/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd (Kaohsiung, Taiwan) (represented by: A. González Hähnlein and A. Kleinheyer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Udo Schmidt (Reken, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘CK1’ — Application for registration No 12 514 956

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2016 in Case R 2193/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 28 January 2004 in Joined Cases T-142/01 and T-283/01: Organización de Productores de Túnidos Congelados (OPTUC) v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/38

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   28 January 2004
   in Joined Cases T-142/01 and T-283/01: Organización de Productores de Túnidos Congelados (OPTUC) v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Fisheries - Common organisation of the markets - Compensation for producers of tuna intended for the processing industry - Allocation between producers' organisations - Change of membership by producers - Effect on the allocation of the allowance - Legal basis - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations)
   (2004/C 94/111)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Joined Cases T-142/01 and T-283/01, Organización de Productores de Túnidos Congelados (OPTUC), established in Bermeo (Spain), represented, in Case T-142/01, by J. R. García-Gallardo Gil Fournier and M. Moya Díaz, lawyers, and, in Case T 283/01, by J. R. García Gallardo Gil-Fournier and J. Guillem Carrau, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities, (Agents: S. Pardo Quintillán and, in Case T-142/01, also by L. Visaggio), with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by Organización de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros Congeladores (Opagac), established in Madrid (Spain), represented by J. Casas Robla and V. Arrastia de Sierra, lawyers: Applications for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 584/2001 of 26 March 2001 amending Regulations (EC) No 1103/2000 and (EC) No 1926/2000 providing for the granting of compensation to producer organisations in respect of tuna delivered to the processing industry from 1 July to 30 September 1999 and from 1 October to 31 December 1999 (OJ 2001 L 86, p. 4), and for the annulment of Article 2(2) of and the annex to each of Commission Regulations (EC) No 585/2001 of 26 March 2001, No 808/2001 of 26 April 2001, No 1163/2001 of 14 June 2001 and No 1670/2001 of 20 August 2001, providing for compensation to producer organisations for tuna delivered to the processing industry between 1 January and 31 March 2000, 1 April and 30 June 2000, 1 July and 30 September 2000 and 1 October and 31 December 2000 (OJ 2000 L 86, p. 8; OJ 2000 L 118, p. 12; OJ 2000 L 159, p. 10 and OJ 2000 L 224, p. 4 respectively), the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 January 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the applications;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the defendant;

               3.

               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245 of 1.09.2001 and OJ C 44 of 16.02.2002.


title: Case T-324/00: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  19 October 2005  — CDA Datenträger Albrechts v Commission (State aid — Misuse of aid — Risk of circumvention of the order for recovery — Recovery of aid from the companies which acquired the operating assets from the original beneficiary)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/15

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 October 2005 — CDA Datenträger Albrechts v Commission
   (Case T-324/00) (1)

   (State aid - Misuse of aid - Risk of circumvention of the order for recovery - Recovery of aid from the companies which acquired the operating assets from the original beneficiary)
   (2005/C 330/39)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant(s): CDA Datenträger Albrechts GmbH (Albrechts, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmidt-Kötters and D. Uwer, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K.-D. Borchardt and V. Kreuschitz, Agents, assisted by C. Koenig)

      Intervener(s) in support of the applicant(s): Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: W.-D. Plessing and T. Jürgensen, Agents, assisted by R. Bierwagen, lawyer)

      Intervener(s) in support of the defendant(s): ODS Optical Disc Service GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: I. Brinker and U. Soltész, lawyers)
   Application for
   annulment of Commission Decision 2000/796/EC of 21 June 2000 on State aid granted by Germany to CDA Compact Disc Albrechts GmbH, Thuringia (OJ 2000 L 318, p. 62).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 2(3) of Commission Decision 2000/796/EC of 21 June 2000 on State aid granted by Germany to CDA Compact Disc Albrechts GmbH, Thuringia;

               2.

               Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the remainder of the action for annulment;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and the costs of CDA Datenträger Albrechts GmbH. The Federal Republic of Germany and ODS Optical Disc Service GmbH are to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ 2000 C 355.


title: Case C-505/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 12 November 2014  — Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 12 November 2014 — Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
   (Case C-505/14)
   (2015/C 065/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Münster

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH

      Defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

      Question referred

   In civil proceedings concerning the performance of a civil-law contract granting aid, does EU law, in particular Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU (or Articles 87 TEC and 88 TEC) and the principle of effectiveness, require that a final declaratory judgment under civil law which has been delivered in the same case and which confirms that the civil-law contract remains in force, without any consideration of the law on aid, be disregarded if under national law the performance of the contract cannot otherwise be prevented?


title: Case T-856/16: Action brought on 5 December 2016 — Rare Hospitality International v EUIPO (LONGHORN STEAKHOUSE)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/59

         Action brought on 5 December 2016 — Rare Hospitality International v EUIPO (LONGHORN STEAKHOUSE)
   (Case T-856/16)
   (2017/C 022/79)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rare Hospitality International, Inc. (Orlando, Florida, United States) (represented by: I. Lázaro Betancor, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘LONGHORN STEAKHOUSE’ — Application for registration No 13 948 682

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2016 in Case R 2149/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of principle of equal treatment and sound administration.


title: Case C-555/08: Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/23

         Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-555/08)
   (2009/C 32/42)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 (1) on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies with regard to financial companies needing support from a public source, in particular banks and insurance companies, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for implementation of the Directive expired on 15 December 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 310, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 May 2005 in Case C-99/04: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2001/80/EC — Failure to transpose)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 12 May 2005
   in Case C-99/04: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/80/EC - Failure to transpose)
   (2005/C 171/07)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-99/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic (Agents: I.M. Braguglia assisted by G. Fiengo) — Action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 26 February 2004 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann and E. Juhász, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 May 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.04.2004


title: Case T-66/12: Action brought on 13 February 2012 — Sedghi and Azizi v Council

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/24

         Action brought on 13 February 2012 — Sedghi and Azizi v Council
   (Case T-66/12)
   2012/C 109/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ali Sedghi (Tehran, Iran) and Ahmad Azizi (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Gadhia and S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC (Queen’s Counsel), and M. Lester, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11), insofar as they concern the applicants; and that the decision to that effect would take immediate effect, without suspension;

               —

               Declare inapplicability of Article 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010, as regards the second applicant;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that none of the legal criteria for listing the applicants is fulfilled, and there is no valid legal or factual basis for their listing; the Council has manifestly erred in assessing that the applicants’ listing is justified;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the contested Decision and Regulation impose unjustified and disproportionate restrictions on the applicants’ fundamental rights;

         The second applicant relies on two additional pleas in law, alleging that:

               —

               the contested Decision and Regulation constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on his rights of free movement in the European Union; and

               —

               the Council lacked the competence to include the second applicant under the Common Foreign and Security Policy, because this is a situation which is purely internal to the European Union.


title: Case C-572/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad — Veliko Tarnovo lodged on 11 November 2011 — Menidzharski biznes reshenia OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ , gr. Veliko Tarnovo, pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalna Agentsia po Prihodite

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/36

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad — Veliko Tarnovo lodged on 11 November 2011 — Menidzharski biznes reshenia OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’, gr. Veliko Tarnovo, pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalna Agentsia po Prihodite
      (Case C-572/11)
      (2012/C 25/69)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Administrativen Sad — Veliko Tarnovo

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Menidzharski biznes reshenia OOD

         Defendants: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’, gr. Veliko Tarnovo, pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalna Agentsia po Prihodite

         Question referred

      Is Article 203 in conjunction with Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted, in cases like the main proceedings and having regard to the principles of fiscal neutrality and protection of legitimate expectations, to the effect that a deduction of VAT may be refused, despite the elimination of the risk of any loss in tax revenues, if that risk was eliminated only with respect to the accounting of the VAT shown in a supplier’s invoice with the State Treasury, without the elimination of the risk of loss in tax revenues affecting the actions or intentions of the supplier which resulted in the fraudulent content of an invoice in which the VAT was shown as payable by the supplier

         (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case F-94/09: Action brought on 9 November 2009 — Nikolchov v Commission

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/42

         Action brought on 9 November 2009 — Nikolchov v Commission
   (Case F-94/09)
   2010/C 11/81
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vladimir Nikolchov (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Lemal, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of 29 July 2009 of the appointing authority refusing to grant daily allowances to the applicant, following his recruitment as a probationary official on 16 January 2009.

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that this action is formally admissible;

               —

               declare that an infringement occurred of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and of declare that there has been an infringement of the Commission decision of 15 April 2004 adopting the General implementing provisions for giving effect to Article 7(3) thereof;

               —

               consequently, order the annulment of the decision of the appointing authority (No R/9/09) of 29 July 2009 dismissing the applicant’s complaint seeking the grant of daily allowances on the basis of his second entry into service, in accordance with the second indent of Article 10(2)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant unpaid daily allowance totalling EUR 10 979,43, or any other amount fixed by the Tribunal, in addition to default interest from the date of bringing the complaint until the date of payment;

               —

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


title: Case T-592/15: Order of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — Novartis v OHIM — SK Chemicals (Representation of a patch) (Community trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Revocation of the contested decision — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/25

         Order of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — Novartis v OHIM — SK Chemicals (Representation of a patch)
   (Case T-592/15) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Revocation of the contested decision - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 200/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: SK Chemicals GmbH (Eschborn, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2015 (Case R 2342/2014-5), concerning cancellation proceedings between SK Chemicals GmbH and Novartis AG.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action;

               2.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Novartis AG and SK Chemicals GmbH.

      (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.


title: Case F-28/07: Action brought on 23 March 2007 — Martin v Court of Justice

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/49

         Action brought on 23 March 2007 — Martin v Court of Justice
   (Case F-28/07)
   (2007/C 199/95)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Claire Martin (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: D. Martin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 4 July 2006 appointing the applicant as a lawyer-linguist probationary official from 16 June 2006, inasmuch as it accorded her grade AD7;

               —

               order that the applicant be classified in grade A*10 corresponding to grade LA6 before the entry into force on 1 May 2005 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (1), with retroactive effect from the date of her appointment on 16 June 2006;

               —

               order the full reconstruction of the applicant's career with retroactive effect from the date of her appointment on 16 June 2006;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant relies on very similar pleas in law to those relied on in Case F-37/07 (2).

      (1)  OJ L 124, 27.4.2004, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007, p. 28.


title: Case C-171/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 11 April 2011 — Fra.bo S.p.A. v Deutsche Vereinigung des Gas- und Wasserfaches e.V. (DVGW) — Technisch-Wissenschaftlicher Verein

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 11 April 2011 — Fra.bo S.p.A. v Deutsche Vereinigung des Gas- und Wasserfaches e.V. (DVGW) — Technisch-Wissenschaftlicher Verein
   (Case C-171/11)
   2011/C 226/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fra.bo S.p.A.

      Defendant: Deutsche Vereinigung des Gas- und Wasserfaches e.V. (DVGW) — Technisch-Wissenschaftlicher Verein

      Intervener: DVGW-Cert GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 28 EC (now Article 34 TFEU), if appropriate in conjunction with Article [86(2)] EC (Article [106(2)] TFEU), to be interpreted as meaning that private-law establishments which have been set up for the purpose of drawing up technical standards in a particular field and certifying products on the basis of those technical standards are bound by the aforementioned provisions when drawing up technical standards and in the certification process if the national legislature expressly regards the products in respect of which certificates have been issued as lawful, thus making it at least considerably more difficult in practice to distribute products in respect of which certificates have not been issued?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative:
               Is Article 81 EC (Article 101 TFEU) to be interpreted as meaning that the activity pursued by a private-law establishment in the field of drawing up technical standards and certifying products on the basis of those technical standards, as defined in paragraph 1, is to be regarded as ‘economic’ if the establishment is controlled by undertakings?
               If the first part of this question is answered in the affirmative:
               Is Article 81 to be interpreted as meaning that the drawing-up of technical standards and the certification of products on the basis of those technical standards by an association of undertakings is capable of impeding trade between the Member States if a product lawfully manufactured and distributed in another Member State cannot be distributed in the importing Member State, or can be distributed there only with considerable difficulty, because it does not meet the requirements of the technical standard and, in the light of the predominance of the technical standard on the market and of a legal provision adopted by the national legislature to the effect that a certificate from the association of undertakings must indicate compliance with the requirements laid down by law, distribution without such a certificate is virtually impossible, and if the technical standard would not be applicable if it had been adopted directly by the national legislature because it infringes the principles of the free movement of goods?