title: Case C-223/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia - 3rd Section - by order of that court of 26 November 1998 in the case of Agorà s.r.l against Ente Autonomo Fiera Internazionale di Milano

text:
C 246/12                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.8.1999
retroactively lays down the single charge of ITL 500 000 for               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
registration of the instrument constituting a company and                  Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — 3rd Sec-
various flat-rate charges for the registration of other company            tion — by order of that court of 26 November 1998 in
documents (varying from ITL 750 000 to ITL 90 000                          the case of Agorà s.r.l against Ente Autonomo Fiera
depending on the kind of company) be considered compatible                                    Internazionale di Milano
with the principles of Community law and with the interpret-
ation of the said directive given by the Court of Justice in its
judgment in Joined Cases C-71/91 and C-178/91?                                                      (Case C-223/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/24)
The foregoing question is asked in the light of the fact that the          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
abovementioned provision (Article 11 of Law No 448 of                      European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
1998), although, because the amounts concerned are objec-                  tivo Regionale per la Lombardia (Lombardy Regional Adminis-
tively modest and the reference ex novo to the registration of             trative Court) — 3rd Section — of 26 November 1998,
company documents was, it seems, intended to refer to flat-rate            received at the Court Registry on 10 June 1999, for a
figures apparently commensurate with the cost of the service               preliminary ruling in the case of Agorà s.r.l v Ente Autonomo
(being duties paid by way of fees or dues: Article 12(1)(e) of             Fiera Internazionale di Milano on the following question:
Directive 335/69), was in fact adopted without any previous
determination or calculation of the costs of the service rendered
to the companies (costs which are easily determinable, because             May the definition of a body governed by public law contained
they relate to past years, on the basis of the number and                  in Article 1(b) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June
qualification of the officials, the time they take and the various         1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award
material costs necessary for carrying out the transaction),                of public service contracts be deemed applicable to the Ente
without there being any significant link between the amounts               Autonomo Fiera Internazionale di Milano?
levied and the service actually received by the companies
which had in fact paid a charge for registration and for annual
renewal thereof and not for the registration of company                    (1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
documents on a flat-rate basis).
Regardless of whether the amounts levied by the Italian State
under Article 11(1) of Law No 448 of 1998 rank as duties
paid by way of fees or dues, is the legally prescribed interest
payable by the State — in addition to the reimbursements to                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad
the companies — with effect, as specifically indicated in Article          van Beroep by order of 24 March 1999 in the case of
11(3), from the date of submission of the application for                             Soziale Verzekeringsbank v Y. Moughit
reimbursement and at an annual rate of 2.5%, which is lower
than the annual rates laid down generally for tax paid but not
                                                                                (Case C-225/99)
due by Articles 1 and 5 of Law No 29 of 19 January 1961
(and successive provisions) or, for other sums paid but not
due, by Article 2033 of the Civil Code, compatible with the                                        (1999/C 246/25)
principle of equivalence between the two systems (domestic
and Community) of law as regards the protection of individ-
uals’ rights and/or with the principle of effective exercise of            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the rights conferred by Community law — both principles                    European Communities by order of 24 March 1999 from the
having been upheld repeatedly by the Court of Justice in its               Centrale Raad van Beroep (Higher Social Security Court),
judgments of 15 September 1998 in Case C-260/96 Spac,                      which was received at the Court Registry on 11 June 1999, for
Case C-231/96 Edis and Joined Cases C-279/96, C-280/96                     a preliminary ruling in the case of Soziale Verzekeringsbank v
and C-281/96(3) Ansaldo?                                                   Y. Moughit on the following question:
                                                                           Must ‘members of [Moroccan workers’] families’ within the
                                                                           meaning of Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement of 27
                                                                           April 1976 between the EC and Morocco (1) be understood as
(1) OJ, English special edition 1969(II), p. 412.                          including the single mother of a Moroccan worker who joined
(2) (1993) ECR I-1915.                                                     him for the purpose of residing with him after he had, as an
(3) (1998) ECR I-5025.                                                     adult, established himself in the territory of a Community
                                                                           Member State?
                                                                           (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of 26.9.1978, OJ 1978 L
                                                                               264, p. 1.


title: Case F-54/13: Action brought on 31 May 2013 — ZZ v EESC

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/64

         Action brought on 31 May 2013 — ZZ v EESC
   (Case F-54/13)
   2013/C 207/113
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the EESC’s decision rejecting a request, brought by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, in order to obtain compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of dogged persistence, or even harassment, on the part of the administration.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Secretary General of the EESC of 3 October 2012 in so far as it rejects the applicant’s request of 5 June 2012 seeking to obtain appropriate and reasonable compensation for the non-material harm suffered by him, adverse effect on his reputation and on his health and adverse effect on his career, confirmed, following the applicant’s complaint of 24 October 2012, by the decision of 22 February 2013;

               —

               grant the applicant compensation for the non-material harm suffered by him and adverse effect on his reputation and his health assessed, subject to being increased or decreased during the proceedings, at EUR 12 000;

               —

               grant the applicant compensation for the adverse effect on his career as a result of the delay in his promotion on account of the investigations and proceedings then being performed, by reconstitution of his career at grade AST 5, subject to change during the proceedings, and, in the alternative, by appropriate compensation assessed, subject to being increased during the proceedings, at EUR 41 403,09;

               —

               order the EESC to pay the costs.


title: Case C-98/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 February 2012 — Wim J. J. Slot v 3 H Camping-Center Heinsberg GmbH

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 February 2012 — Wim J. J. Slot v 3 H Camping-Center Heinsberg GmbH
   (Case C-98/12)
   2012/C 126/17
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Wim J. J. Slot

      Respondent: 3 H Camping-Center Heinsberg GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is there a matter relating to a consumer contract within the meaning of Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1) if a trader has, by the design of his website, directed his activities to another Member State and a consumer domiciled in the territory of that Member State, on the basis of the information on the trader’s website, travels to where his business is located and the parties sign the contract there,
               or
               does Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001 presuppose in that case that a distance contract is concluded?

               2.

               If Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001 is to be interpreted as meaning that in that case the contract must in principle be a distance contract:
               Does the consumer jurisdiction under Article 15(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 16(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 apply if the parties to the contract enter into a distance pre-contractual commitment which subsequently flows directly into the conclusion of the contract?

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 November 2002 in Case C-348/01: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 97/11/EC — Environmental impact assessment of certain public and private projects — Incomplete transposition)

text:
21.12.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 323/23
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting for the President                  (Agents: G. de Bergues and D. Colas also by C. Isidoro):
of the Second Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rappor-                   Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the
teur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,                laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 November 2002,                   comply with Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997
in which it has ruled:                                                       amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the
                                                                             effects of certain public and private projects on the environ-
1.    Articles 3 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 881/92 of              ment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5), alternatively by failing to inform
      26 March 1992 on access to the market in the carriage of               the Commission of those provisions, the French Republic has
      goods by road within the Community to or from the territory of         failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court
      a Member State or passing across the territory of one or more          (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
      Member States, and Article 14 of Council Regulation (EEC)              the Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
      No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment                  V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano,
      in road transport, both in its original version and in that            Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Regis-
      resulting from Council Regulation (EC) No 2135/98 of                   trar, has given a judgment on 7 November 2002, in which it:
      24 September 1998, do not permit a road haulage company
      established in one Member State, which hires out vehicles              1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed time-
      without drivers to a road haulage company established in                     limit all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
      another Member State, to transfer the benefit of its own                     necessary to comply with Article 1(7) and (11) of Council
      Community authorisation to the lessee or to retain the                       Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive
      management of the tachograph discs of the hired vehicles.                    85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public
                                                                                and private projects on the environment, the French Republic
2.    Article 2(1) of Council Directive 84/647/EEC of 19 December                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      1984 on the use of vehicles hired without drivers for the
      carriage of goods by road, as amended by Council Directive 90/         2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
      398/EEC of 24 July 1990, should be interpreted as meaning
      that, subject to the possible application of Article 4 of that
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
      directive, vehicles hired without drivers must be registered in the
      Member State in which the lessee road haulage company is
      established.
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 7 November 2002
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             in Case C-352/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                            (Sixth Chamber)                                                      ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
                         of 7 November 2002                                  (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                                                                                to transpose Directive 98/8/EC)
in Case C-348/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                       ties v French Republic ( 1)                                                       (2002/C 323/32)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
Directive 97/11/EC — Environmental impact assessment of
certain public and private projects — Incomplete transpo-                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                 sition)                                                         in the European Court Reports)
                            (2002/C 323/31)
                                                                             In Case C-352/01, Commission of the European Communities
                      (Language of the case: French)                         (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent:
                                                                             L. Fraguas Gadea): Application for a declaration that, by failing
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                     in the European Court Reports)                          necessary to comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European
                                                                             Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning
                                                                             the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998
                                                                             L 123, p. 1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate them
In Case C-348/01, Commission of the European Communities                     to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
(Agents: G. zur Hausen and J. Adda) v French Republic                        its obligations under that directive, the Court, composed of:


title: Judgment of the Court of 16 November 2016 in Case E-4/16 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway (Non-compliance with a judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Article 33 SCA — Measures necessary to comply with a judgment of the Court)

text:
               15.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/49

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 16 November 2016
   in Case E-4/16
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway

      (Non-compliance with a judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Article 33 SCA — Measures necessary to comply with a judgment of the Court)

   (2017/C 189/13)
   In Case E-4/16, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by failing to take, within the time prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 2 December 2013 in Case E-13/13 ESA v Norway, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 16 November 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by failing, within the time prescribed, to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 2 December 2013 in Case E-13/13 ESA v Norway.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-380/14: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Pshonka v Council (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Admissibility — Proof that inclusion on the list is justified — Manifestly well-founded action)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/45

         Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Pshonka v Council
   (Case T-380/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Admissibility - Proof that inclusion on the list is justified - Manifestly well-founded action))
   (2016/C 335/59)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Artem Viktorovych Pshonka (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Constantina and J.-M. Reymond, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1), in so far as they relate to the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine are annulled in so far as they relate to Mr Artem Viktorovych Pshonka.

               2.

               The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Pshonka.

               3.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Case T-154/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Ripassa ZENATO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Ripassa ZENATO — Earlier national word mark RIPASSO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/28

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Ripassa ZENATO)
      (Case T-154/11) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Ripassa ZENATO - Earlier national word mark RIPASSO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2015/C 016/46)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Cantina Broglie 1 Srl (Peschiera del Garda, Italy) (represented by: A. Rizzoli, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Verona, Italy)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2010 (Case R 700/2010–2) concerning opposition proceedings between the Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona and Zenato Azienda Vitivinicola Srl.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Cantina Broglie 1 Srl to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 17 July 1997 in Case C-28/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof, Amsterdam): A. Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Amsterdam 2 (Article 177 - Jurisdiction of the Court - National legislation adopting Community provisions - Transposition - Directive 90/434/EEC - Merger by exchange of shares - Tax evasion or avoidance)

text:
C 271 /2                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        6 . 9 . 97
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Fifth Chamber )                                                     of 17 July 1997
                           of 10 July 1997                             in Case C-28/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the Gerechtshof, Amsterdam ): A. Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur
in Case C-261/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  der Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Amsterdam 2 (')
the Pretura Circondariale, Frosinone ): Rosalba Palmisani              (Article 177 — Jurisdiction of the Court — National
   v. Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS ) (M           legislation       adopting     Community provisions              —
(Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of               Transposition — Directive 90/434/EEC — Merger by
                                                                              exchange of shares — Tax evasion or avoidance)
the insolvency of their employer — Council Directive 80/
987/EEC — Liability of a Member State arising from                                               ( 97/C 271 /03 )
belated transposition of a directive — Adequate reparation
                        — Limitation period)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                            ( 97/C 271 /02
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                                  published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-28/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam, for
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
           published in the European Court Reports)                    that court between A. Leur-Bloem and Inspecteur der
                                                                       Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Amsterdam 2 — on the
                                                                       interpretation of Articles 2 ( d ) and 11 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Council
                                                                       Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common
In Case C-261 /95 : reference to the Court under Article 177           system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions,
of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale (District              transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning
Magistrate's Court), Frosinone ( Italy ), for a preliminary            companies of different Member States ( OJ L 225 , 20 . 8 .
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                    1990, p. 1 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
between Rosalba Palmisani and Istituto Nazionale della                 Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
Previdenza Sociale ( INPS ) — on the interpretation of                 Almeida, J. L. Murray and L. Sevon ( Presidents of
Article 5 of the EC Treaty and of the principle of State               Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C.
liability for loss or damage caused to individuals by a                Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P.
breach of Community law attributable to the State — the                Jann ( Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; F. G.
Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de                Jacobs, Advocate General; H. A. Riihl, Principal
Almeida, President of the Chamber, L. Sevon, D. A. O.                  Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Edward, P. Jann and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur), Judges;                 17 July 1997, in which it has ruled :
G. Cosmas, Advocate General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 July 1997,
in which it has ruled :                                                1 . The Court of Justice has jurisdiction under Article 177
                                                                            of the EC Treaty to interpret Community law where
                                                                            the situation in question is not governed directly by
                                                                            Community law but the national legislature, in
Community law, as it stands at present, does not preclude                   transposing the provisions of a directive into domestic
a Member State from requiring any action for reparation                     law, has chosen to apply the same treatment to purely
of the loss or damage sustained as a result of the belated                  internal situations and to those governed by the
transposition of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of                            directive, so that it has aligned its domestic legislation
20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the                     to Community law.
Member States relating to the protection of employees in
the event of the insolvency of their employer to be
brought within a limitation period of one year from the                2 . ( a ) Article 2 (d) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of
date of its transposition into national law, provided that                       23 July 1990, on the common system of taxation
that procedural requirement is no less favourable than                           applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets
procedural requirements in respect of similar actions of a                       and exchanges of shares concerning companies of
domestic nature.                                                                 different Member States, does not require the
                                                                                acquiring company, within the meaning of
                                                                                Article 2 (h) of the Directive, to carry on business
(') OJ C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .                                                  itself or there to be a permanent merger, from the
                                                                                financial and economic point of view, of the
                                                                                business of two companies into a single unit.
                                                                                Similarly, the fact that the same natural person
                                                                                who was the sole shareholder and director of the
 ---pagebreak--- 6 . 9 . 97               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 271 /3
            acquiring companies becomes the sole shareholder              ( Finance Court, Hesse ), Kassel ( Germany) for a
            and director of the acquiring company does not                preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
            prevent the operation in question from being                  court between Bernd Giloy and Hauptzollamt Frankfurt
            treated as a merger by exchange of shares.                    am Main-Ost — on the interpretation of Article 244 of
                                                                          Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92 of 12 October
      ( b ) Article 11 of Directive 90/434 is to be interpreted           1992 establishing the Community Customs Code ( OJ
            as meaning that in determining whether the                    L 302, 19 . 10 . 1992, p. 1 ) — the Court, composed of:
            planned operation has as its principal objective or           G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C.
            as one of its principal objectives tax evasion or tax         Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray and L. Sevon
            avoidance, the competent national authorities must            ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.
            carry out a general examination of the operation              Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ), J.
            in each particular case. Such an examination must             P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm,
            be open to judicial review. Under Article 11 (1 ) (a)         Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. A. Riihl,
            of Directive 90/434, the Member States may                    Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
            stipulate that the fact that the planned operation is         judgment on 17 July 1997, in which it has ruled :
            not carried out for valid commercial reasons
            constitutes a presumption of tax evasion or tax               1 . On a proper construction of the second paragraph of
            avoidance. It is for the Member States, observing                  Article 244 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
            the principle of proportionality, to determine the                 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
            internal procedures necessary for this purpose.                    Customs Code, the customs authorities should suspend
            However, the laying down of a general rule                         implementation of a disputed customs decision in
            automatically excluding certain categories of                      whole or in part where one only of the two conditions
            operations from the tax advantage, on the basis of                 mentioned in that provision is fulfilled, so that
            criteria such as those mentioned in the second
                                                                               suspension must be granted where there is a risk of
            answer under (a), whether or not there is actually                 irreparable damage for the person concerned. It is not
            tax evasion or tax avoidance, would go further                     necessary that there be reason to believe that the
            than is necessary for preventing such tax evasion                  disputed decision is inconsistent with customs
            or such tax avoidance and would undermine the                      legislation.
            aim pursued by Directive 90/434.
                                                                          2 . The fact that irreparable damage may be suffered by
      ( c ) 'Valid commercial reasons ', within the meaning of
                                                                               the person concerned in the event of immediate
            Article 11 of Directive 90/434, must be interpreted
                                                                               implementation of a disputed customs decision does
            as involving more than the attainment of a purely
                                                                               not prevent the customs authorities from making
            fiscal advantage such as horizontal off-setting of
            losses.
                                                                               suspension of its implementation conditional upon the
                                                                               lodging of security. However, if the requirement to
                                                                               lodge security is likely, owing to the debtor's
(') OJ C 74 , 25 . 3 . 1995 .                                                  circumstances, to cause serious economic or social
                                                                               difficulties, the customs authorities are free to decide
                                                                               not to require such security to be lodged.
                                                                          3 . Making suspension of implementation of a disputed
                                                                               customs decision subject to the lodging of security
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        would be likely to cause serious economic or social
                           of 17 July 1997                                     difficulties for a debtor who does not have sufficient
                                                                               means to provide such security.
in Case C-130/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel ): Bernd Giloy v.
              Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main-Ost (')                      4 . Where suspension of implementation of a disputed
                                                                               customs decision is subject, under the third paragraph
(Article 177 — Jurisdiction of the Court — National                            of Article 244 of Regulation No 2913/92, to the
legislation adopting Community provisions — Community                          lodging of security, the amount of that security must
Customs Code — Appeal — Suspension of a customs                                be set at the precise amount of the debt or, if this
                  decision — Provision of security)                            cannot be established with certainty, at the maximum
                                                                               amount of the debt which has been, or may be,
                              ( 97/C 271 /04 )
                                                                               incurred, unless the requirement to provide security is
                                                                               likely to cause the debtor serious economic or social
                   (Language of the case: German)                              difficulties; if that is the case, the amount of security
                                                                               may be set, taking into account the debtor's financial
                                                                               situation, at an amount less than the total amount of
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                 the debt concerned.
             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          (') OJ C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
In Case C-130/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Hessisches Finanzgericht


title: Case T-1/09: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 — Dornbracht v OHIM — Metaform Lucchese (META) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for the Community word mark META — Earlier Community figurative mark METAFORM — Relative grounds for refusal — Similarity of the goods and the signs — Refusal of registration — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 — Dornbracht v OHIM — Metaform Lucchese (META)
   (Case T-1/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for the Community word mark META - Earlier Community figurative mark METAFORM - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the goods and the signs - Refusal of registration - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Likelihood of confusion)
   2011/C 319/27
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt and M. Bergermann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Metaform Lucchese SpA (Pescaglia, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and A. Perani, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 November 2008 (Case R 1152/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Metaform Lucchese SpA and Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case T-198/09: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — UOP v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/19

         Order of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — UOP v Commission
   (Case T-198/09) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   2013/C 129/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: UOP Ltd (Guildford, United Kingdom)) (represented by: B. Hartnett and O. Geiss, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Talabér-Ritz and T. Scharf, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: IFP (Rueil Malmaison, France) (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and A. Noël Baron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2009/157/EC of 16 July 2008 on the aid measure implemented by France for the IFP Group (C 51/05 (ex NN 84/05)) (OJ 2009 L 53, p. 13).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               UOP Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and IFP.

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


title: Case T-234/08: Action brought on 10 June 2008 — EuroChem MCC v Council

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/58

         Action brought on 10 June 2008 — EuroChem MCC v Council
   (Case T-234/08)
   (2008/C 209/105)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: EuroChem Mineral and Chemical Company OAO (EuroChem MCC) (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and B. Evtimov, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 238/2008 of 10 March 2008 terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of the anti-dumping duty on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, insofar as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicant, its manufacturing subsidiaries and related companies, indicated in paragraph 10 of the contested regulation;

               —

               Order the competent institutions, in light of the gravity of breaches of Community law found, to discontinue the imposition of the anti-dumping duty with respect to the applicant and its manufacturing subsidiaries and related companies, until the Community institutions have adopted the measures necessary to comply with the Court's judgment;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Russian producer and exporter of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate, seeks the annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of Council Regulation (EC) No 38/2008 (1) (‘the contested regulation’).
   In support of its application, the applicant puts forward one main ground for annulment, subdivided in three limbs. The applicant submits that the Community institutions wrongly established the normal value for the applicant, leading to its artificial increase; carried out a wrong comparison with the export price and hence reached an erroneous finding of dumping, thereby breaching Articles 1 and 2 of the Basic Regulation (2), while committing a series of manifest errors of assessment and violating fundamental principles of Community law. These breaches directly led, according to the applicant, to the unwarranted termination of the interim review without amendment of the anti-dumping measure with respect to the applicant.
   More specifically, the applicant claims, on the basis of its first plea, that the Community institutions erred in law and violated Article 2(3) and (5) of the Basic Regulation, by disregarding a major part of the applicant's costs of production as being unreliable and/or by de facto applying a non-market economy methodology for establishing the major part of the applicant's normal value.
   On the basis of its second plea, the applicant claims that the Commission, once having decided to proceed with the gas adjustment, violated Article 2(5), second sentence, of the Basic Regulation and/or made a manifest error of appreciation. Moreover, the applicant argues that the Commission showed lack of reasoning by implementing the gas adjustment on the basis of the intra-community price of gas at Waidhaus Germany and by failing to deduct from the amount of adjustment the 30 % Russian export duty on Russian gas.
   On the basis of its third plea, the applicant contends that the Community institutions violated Article 2(10) of the Basic Regulation and made a manifest error of assessment of the facts by deducting from the applicant's export price the first independent customer selling, general and administrative expenses and commission in respect of related companies, which are general parts of the applicant's single economic entity and integrated sales department.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 238/2008 of 10 March 2008 terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of the anti-dumping duty on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ 2008 L 75, p. 14).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).


title: Case C-596/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — European Commission v Moravia Gas Storage a.s., formerly Globula a.s., Czech Republic (Appeals — Internal market in natural gas — Obligation of natural gas undertakings — Organisation of a system of negotiated third party access to gas storage facilities — Decision of the Czech authorities — Temporary exemption for future underground gas storage facilities in Dambořice — Commission decision — Order to withdraw the exemption decision — Directives 2003/55/EC and 2009/73/EC — Temporal application)

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — European Commission v Moravia Gas Storage a.s., formerly Globula a.s., Czech Republic
   (Case C-596/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Internal market in natural gas - Obligation of natural gas undertakings - Organisation of a system of negotiated third party access to gas storage facilities - Decision of the Czech authorities - Temporary exemption for future underground gas storage facilities in Dambořice - Commission decision - Order to withdraw the exemption decision - Directives 2003/55/EC and 2009/73/EC - Temporal application))
   (2015/C 171/06)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Moravia Gas Storage a.s., formerly Globula a.s. (represented by: P. Zákoucký and D. Koláček, advokáti), Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Globula v Commission (T-465/11, EU:T:2013:406);

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Case T-166/13: Order of the General Court of 14 October 2014  — Ben Ali v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Freezing of funds — Extension — Consequences of an annulment of earlier freezing of funds measures — No need to adjudicate — Non-contractual liability — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/21

         Order of the General Court of 14 October 2014 — Ben Ali v Council
   (Case T-166/13) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Freezing of funds - Extension - Consequences of an annulment of earlier freezing of funds measures - No need to adjudicate - Non-contractual liability - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2014/C 448/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali (Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, France) (represented by: A. de Saint Rémy, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and A. De Elera, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, an application for annulment of Council Decision 2013/72/CFSP of 31 January 2013 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 32, p. 20), in so far as that decision concerns the applicant and, secondly, an application for the payment of damages

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the pleas seeking annulment of Council Decision 2013/72/CFSP of 31 January 2013 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia, in so far as that decision concerns Mr Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali.

               2.

               The remainder of the action is dismissed.

               3.

               Mr Ben Ali and the Council of the European Union are each ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.


title: Case C-443/08: Action brought on 7 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/11

         Action brought on 7 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-443/08)
   (2009/C 6/18)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws and regulations necessary to correctly transpose Article 2(3), Article 2(4) and Article 4(4) of Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations (1) as regards the definition of the concepts of ‘small installation’ and ‘substantial change’ and the obligations applying to existing installations, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that the concepts of ‘small installation’ and ‘substantial change’, as defined in Articles 2(3) and 2(4) of Directive 1999/13/EC, are necessary in order to ensure a harmonised and efficient application of that directive in so far as they specify the obligations applying to certain categories of industrial installations referred to by that directive. There are many omissions in that regard in the transposition of the directive into French law because the defendant did not include any definition of the concept ‘small installation’, while its definition of the concept ‘substantial change’ does not take into account the thresholds for the increase of emissions of volatile organic compounds, above which the change in an installation must be considered to be substantial.
   The applicant also criticises the lack of precision and clarity in the transposition of Article 4(4) of the Directive concerning the obligations applying to substantial changes in existing installations. The rules relating to new installations being stricter than those applicable to old installations, clearer rules should in fact be drawn up also in the cases where an existing installation undergoes significant changes in order to ensure the directive, the purpose of which is to guarantee a high level of protection of the environment, remains effective.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 85, p. 1.


title: Case T-210/14: Action brought on 1 April 2014 — Mederer/OHIM — Cadbury Netherlands International Holdings (Gummi Bear-Rings)

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/15

         Action brought on 1 April 2014 — Mederer/OHIM — Cadbury Netherlands International Holdings (Gummi Bear-Rings)
   (Case T-210/14)
   2014/C 245/21
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mederer GmbH (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: C. Sachs and O. Ruhl, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cadbury Netherlands International Holdings BV (Breda, Netherlands)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 December 2013 in case R 225/2013-5;

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs incurred during the proceedings before the OHIM and the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Gummi Bear-Rings’ for goods in Class 30 — International registration No 1 051 028 designating the European Union

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Cadbury Netherlands International Holdings BV

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national figurative mark containing the word element ‘Gummy’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-419/11: Action brought on 29 July 2011 — Ellinika Touristika Akinita v Commission

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/43

         Action brought on 29 July 2011 — Ellinika Touristika Akinita v Commission
   (Case T-419/11)
   2011/C 282/80
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Ellinika Touristika Akinita A.E. (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Fragkakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               allow the application in its entirety;

               —

               annul and set aside the contested decision of the Commission addressed to the Hellenic Republic;

               —

               order that any sum that may have been ‘recovered’ directly or indirectly from the applicant in implementation of the contested decision be refunded with interest;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 3504 final of 24 May 2011 relating to State aid to certain Greek casinos, No C 16/2010 (ex NN 22/2010, ex CP 318/2009), which was implemented by the Hellenic Republic.
   The applicant puts forward the following grounds for annulment.
   The first ground is derived from the incorrect interpretation and application of Article 107(1) TFEU and insufficient reasoning in breach of Article 296 TFEU. In particular, the measure under consideration: (i) does not ensure an economic advantage for the casino of Parnitha and that of Corfu through the transfer of State resources, (ii) is not selective in nature and (iii) is not capable of affecting trade between Member States and does not distort or threaten to distort competition.
   The second ground is derived from the incorrect interpretation and application of Article 14(1)(a) 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 (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1). In particular: (i) the recovery of unlawful State aid can be sought only from the actual beneficiaries of the aid and (ii) there is no identity between the actual beneficiaries of the measure at issue (the casinos’ customers) and the persons to which the order for recovery is addressed (the casinos of Corfu, Parnitha and Thessaloniki), which were not charged for admission tickets.
   The third ground is derived from the incorrect interpretation and application of Article 14(1)(b) of that regulation. Recovery of the aid at issue is contrary to: (i) the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and (ii) the principle of proportionality.


title: Case C-236/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 — Control system in the fisheries sector — Delay in communication of required data)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-236/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 - Control system in the fisheries sector - Delay in communication of required data)
   (2006/C 326/27)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Banks, Agent)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Nwaokolo, Agent, and by D.J. Rhee, Barrister)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 19(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1) — Failure to provide the data required thereunder within the period prescribed
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by not communicating in time the data required by the first and third indents of Article 19i of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 06.08.2005.


title: Case C-195/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep, Antwerp, by judgment of that Court of 7 May 2003 in the case of Ministerie van Financiën against 1. Papismedov, Merabi, 2. Geldof, Eddy Pierre Georgette, 3. Ben-Or, Anzor, 4. Peer, Rami, 5. Peer, Micha, 6. Tavdidischvili, Badri, 7. Janssens, Jozef Julien Maria, 8. Transocean System Transport BVBA, 9. Hoste, Jean Paul Gustaaf Louis, 10. United Logisitic Partners BVBA, 11. Decock, Frank Jozef Hilda, 12. Joris, Johannes Marie-Louise, and 13. Vanbelleghem, Georgette Leonie Julienne

text:
C 158/14                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            5.7.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep,                       Customs Code or must the view be taken that in respect
Antwerp, by judgment of that Court of 7 May 2003 in the                         of those goods no customs debt has yet arisen?
case of Ministerie van Financiën against 1. Papismedov,
Merabi, 2. Geldof, Eddy Pierre Georgette, 3. Ben-Or,                      4.    If the answer to the first question is negative must goods
Anzor, 4. Peer, Rami, 5. Peer, Micha, 6. Tavdidischvili,                        which, even if not intentionally, were declared under an
Badri, 7. Janssens, Jozef Julien Maria, 8. Transocean                           incorrect designation/commercial designation be regard-
System Transport BVBA, 9. Hoste, Jean Paul Gustaaf                              ed as having been introduced unlawfully into the customs
Louis, 10. United Logisitic Partners BVBA, 11. Decock,                          territory of the Community (in other words imported in
Frank Jozef Hilda, 12. Joris, Johannes Marie-Louise, and                        breach of the provisions of Articles 38 to 41 inclusive
        13. Vanbelleghem, Georgette Leonie Julienne                             and of the second indent of Article 177 of the Community
                                                                                Customs Code) as a result of which the customs debt in
                          (Case C-195/03)                                       respect of those goods arises under Article 202 of the
                                                                                Community Customs Code and the person making the
                          (2003/C 158/23)                                       summary declaration or the declaration for a customs
                                                                                procedure, even if with an incorrect designation/commer-
                                                                                cial designation, may be deemed to be the customs debtor
                                                                                only if he may be regarded as a debtor within the meaning
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          of Article 202(3) of the Community Customs Code?
European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Beroep,
Antwerp, (Criminal Court of Appeal) of 7 May 2003, received
at the Court Registry on 12 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Ministerie van Financiën against 1. Papismedov,
Merabi, 2. Geldof, Eddy Pierre Georgette, 3. Ben-Or, Anzor,
4. Peer, Rami, 5. Peer, Micha, 6. Tavdidischvili, Badri,
7. Janssens, Jozef Julien Maria, 8. Transocean System Transport
BVBA, 9. Hoste, Jean Paul Gustaaf Louis, 10. United Logisitic             Action brought on 13 May 2003 by the Commission of
Partners BVBA, 11. Decock, Frank Jozef Hilda, 12. Joris,                  the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Johannes Marie-Louise, and 13. Vanbelleghem, Georgette                                                 Luxembourg
Leonie Julienne on the following questions:
                                                                                (Case C-200/03)
1.    Must goods in respect of which a summary declaration
      was submitted with an incorrect designation/commercial
                                                                                (2003/C 158/24)
      designation (‘cookware’ instead of cigarettes), or goods
      which were declared under an incorrect designation/
      commercial designation for the purposes of a customs
      procedure (such as the procedure for external Community             An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
      customs transit), be regarded as being lawfully introduced          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
      into the customs territory of the Community and,                    ties on 13 May 2003 by the Commission of the European
      accordingly, as being under customs supervision (tempor-            Communities, represented by Denis Martin and Miguel França,
      ary storage or customs procedure), notwithstanding the              acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      fact that, even if not intentionally, the goods bore an
      incorrect designation/commercial designation?
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
2.    If the answer to the first question is affirmative must the
      view be taken, in the case of removal from customs                  —     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      supervision of goods which, even if not intentionally,                    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      were declared under an incorrect designation/commercial                   Council Directive 93/99/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the
      designation, that the customs debt arises under                           subject of additional measures concerning the official
      Article 203 of the Community Customs Code and must                        control of foodstuffs ( 1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
      the person liable to comply with the obligations arising                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
      out of temporary storage of the goods or from use of the
      customs procedure under which the goods (even if under              —     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
      an incorrect designation) were placed, also be regarded as
      a debtor in respect of the customs debt?
3.    If the answer to the first question is affirmative, on              Pleas in law and main arguments
      establishment by the customs authorities that the goods
      under customs supervision were declared, even if not
      intentionally, under an incorrect designation/commercial            The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on
      designation, whilst the goods had not (by then) been                1 November 1998.
      removed from customs supervision and the customs
      authorities still had access to the goods, must the customs
      debt in respect of the goods which were declared under              (1 ) OJ L 290 of 24.11.1993, p. 14.
      an incorrect designation/commercial designation be
      regarded as arising under Article 204 of the Community


title: Case T-248/10: Action brought on 26 May 2010 — Italy v Commission and EPSO

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/49

         Action brought on 26 May 2010 — Italy v Commission and EPSO
   (Case T-248/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/73
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission and European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/177/10 — Administrators (AD 5) published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 March 2010 (OJ 2010 C 64A);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-218/09 Italy v Commission. (1)

      (1)  OJ C 180 of 1.8.09, p. 59.


title: Case T-244/05: Action brought on 1 July 2005 by Gibtelecom Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/37

         Action brought on 1 July 2005 by Gibtelecom Limited against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-244/05)
   (2005/C 205/65)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 July 2005 by Gibtelecom Limited, established in Europort (Gibraltar), represented by M. Llamas, Barrister, B. O'Connor, Solicitor, and S. Brummel, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision, notified to Gibtelecom by a letter dated 26 April 2005 (Reference No. 1982), by which the Commission implicitly rejected the complaint brought by Gibtelecom against Spain under Article 86 EC in conjunction with Article 49 EC and/or 12 EC;

               —

               order the Commission to pay Gibtelecom's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision the Commission rejected a complaint by the applicant filed on 31 October 1996 and alleging that the Spanish telecommunications operator, Telefonica SA, had committed a series of abuses of dominant position contrary to Article 82 EC in refusing to recognise Gibraltar's International Dialling Code (‘350’) and insisting on acceptance of restrictive conditions for the exchange of automatic direct dial traffic between Spain and Gibraltar. The applicant later converted that complaint into a complaint under Article 86 EC, in conjunction with Articles 82 EC, 49 EC and 12 EC against Spain, alleging that Telefonica was acting under instructions from the Spanish Government which claims sovereignty over Gibraltar.
   In support of its application, the applicant invokes a series of alleged manifest errors of assessment of the contested decision. According to the applicant, the Commission erred in considering that Telefonica is not a public undertaking or that it enjoys special rights within the meaning of Article 86 EC.
   The applicant further alleges that, by giving instructions to Telefonica to refuse the ITU-assigned 350 IDD code for Gibraltar, Spain created and maintained discriminatory obstacles to the free movement of telecommunications services, contrary to Article 49 EC. Further, the applicant considers that the Spanish State's refusal to recognise this code produces discriminatory treatment based on nationality and residence and is contrary to the prohibition on discrimination in Article 12 EC.
   The applicant also maintains that by considering, in the contested decision, that a suitable solution in the numbering problem should be found through direct bilateral discussions between Spain and the United Kingdom, the Commission has committed a further manifest error of assessment since, according to the applicant, there is no suitable alternative to the Commission's intervention.
   The applicant also puts forward a number of procedural and administrative grounds for annulment. The applicant refers, in this context, to an alleged violation of the Commission's duty, under Article 253 EC, to state adequate reasons for its decision, as well as a violation of the applicant's legitimate expectations which allegedly arose from a letter sent on 7 June 2000 by three members of the Commission to Spain and the United Kingdom, requesting the two countries, amongst other things, find a solution to the numbering complaint. The applicant further submits, in the context of the same plea, that the Commission has failed to act impartially and that it has breached the principle requiring it to act within a reasonable period.


title: Case T-84/09: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2012 — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Provision of information and promotion of agricultural products — Production of olive oil and table olives — Late payment)

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2012 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-84/09) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Provision of information and promotion of agricultural products - Production of olive oil and table olives - Late payment)
   2012/C 343/15
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: L. Ventrella and G. Palmieri, avvocati dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and P. Rossi, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/960/EC of 8 December 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (OJ 2008 L 340, p. 99), as far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Case F-71/06: Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/36

         Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission
   (Case F-71/06)
   (2006/C 190/68)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the applicant's Career Development Report (CDR) for the period 1.1.2004 — 31.12.2004

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of her action, the applicant puts forward three pleas alleging:

               —

               (1) infringement of the General provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations on the statutory and trade union staff-representatives, infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the rule ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’,

               —

               (2) infringement of the principle of the prohibition of arbitrary process and of the principle of the prohibition of abuse of powers, and infringement of the duty to give reasons and of the rights of the defence;

               —

               (3) infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare and/or interests of officials.


title: Case C-362/10: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 October 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/98/EC — Re-use of public sector information — Incorrect transposition of or failure to transpose certain articles within the period prescribed)

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/14

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 October 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-362/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/98/EC - Re-use of public sector information - Incorrect transposition of or failure to transpose certain articles within the period prescribed)
   2011/C 370/21
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. La Pergola and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose into the Polish legal order Articles 2 to 4, 6 to 8, 10 and 11 of Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those articles;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case F-57/13: Action brought on 21 June 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/27

         Action brought on 21 June 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-57/13)
   (2013/C 226/37)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision fixing the bonus on the applicant’s pension rights acquired before his entry into service at the Commission under the new GIP and of the decision rejecting his claim.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 8 January 2013 calculating the bonus on the applicant’s pension rights acquired before his entry into service at the Commission;

               —

               In so far as it is necessary, annul the decision rejecting his claim of 12 March 2013 seeking the application of the GIP and actuarial rates in force at the time when he made his application to transfer his pension rights;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-603/15 P: Appeal brought on 10 November 2015 by Monster Energy Company against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-666/14: Monster Energy v EUIPO

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/15

         Appeal brought on 10 November 2015 by Monster Energy Company against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-666/14: Monster Energy v EUIPO
   (Case C-603/15 P)
   (2016/C 270/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Monster Energy Company (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   By order of 4 May 2016 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-490/08: Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2010 — CM Capital Markets v OHIM — Carbon Capital Markets (CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS Emissions Compliance Solutions & Carbon Finance) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS Emissions Compliance Solutions & Carbon Finance — Earlier Community and national figurative marks CM Capital Markets — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2010 — CM Capital Markets v OHIM — Carbon Capital Markets (CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS Emissions Compliance Solutions & Carbon Finance)
   (Case T-490/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS Emissions Compliance Solutions & Carbon Finance - Earlier Community and national figurative marks CM Capital Markets - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 209/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CM Capital Markets Holding, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: T. Villate Consonni and J. Calderón Chavero, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. F. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Carbon Capital Markets Ltd (Oxford, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Hardcastle, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2008 (Case R 16/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between CM Capital Markets Holding, SA and Carbon Capital Markets Ltd

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders CM Capital Markets Holding, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 October 2000 in Case T-187/98: Pascual Juan Cubero Vermurie v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Promotions — Mobility — Admissibility)

text:
9.12.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 355/21
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 3 October 2000
                     of 29 September 2000
                                                                         in Case T-187/98: Pascual Juan Cubero Vermurie v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-87/98: International Potash Company v Council
                   of the European Union (1)                                 (Officials — Promotions — Mobility — Admissibility)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/47)
(Anti-dumping duties — Fixed duty combined with a variable
duty — Dumping margin — Principle of proportionality —
                      Statement of reasons)                                                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         In Case T-187/98: Pascual Juan Cubero Vermurie, an official
                         (2000/C 355/46)                                 in the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                         Brussels, represented by E. Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                         L. Schiltz, 2, rue du Fort Rheinsheim, against Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and
                  (Language of the case: English)                        F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application for, first, the annulment
                                                                         of the decision of 6 April 1998 not to promote the applicant
                                                                         to Grade A 5 during the 1998 promotions and, secondly,
                                                                         compensation for material and non-material damage caused
In Case T-87/98: International Potash Company, established in            to the him as a result of his non-promotion — the Court
Moscow (Russia), represented by J.F. Bellis and R. Luff, of the          of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Garcı́a-
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the           Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Her-
Chambers of A.F. Brausch, 8 Rue Zithe, against Council of the            zig, administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt, H. J. Rabe and                     3 October 2000, in which it:
G. Berrisch), supported by the Commission of the European
Communities (Agents V. Kreuschitz and N. Khan) and by the                1.    dismisses the application.
European Potash Producers’ Association, represented by
D. and D. Ehle, Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an address for              2.    orders the parties to bear their own costs.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Lucius, 6 Rue
Michel Welter — application for annulment of Article 1 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 449/98 of 23 February 1998                    (1) OJ No C 20 of 23.1.99.
amending Regulation (EEC) No 3068/92 in respect of definitive
anti-dumping duties on imports of potassium chloride orig-
inating in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine (OJ 1998 L 58, p. 15)
— the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended
Composition), composed of: M.K. Lennaerts, President, and
J. Azizi, R.M. Moura Ramos, M. Jaeger and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 29 September 2000 in which it:                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 24 October 2000
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                         in Case T-178/98: Fresh Marine Company SA v Com-
2.    Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and the costs of the               mission of the European Communities (1)
      Council and the European Potash Producers’ Association;
                                                                         (Provisional anti-dumping and countervailing duties —
                                                                         Farmed Atlantic salmon — Non-contractual liability of the
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                                                    Community)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/48)
(1) OJ C 234, 25.7.98.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         In Case T-178/98: Fresh Marine Company SA, established in
                                                                         Trondheim, Norway, represented by J.-F. Bellis and B. Servais,


title: Joined Cases C-471/07 and C-472/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 January 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — Association générale de l’industrie du médicament (AGIM) ASBL (C-471/07 and C-472/07), Bayer SA (C-471/07 and C-472/07), Pfizer SA (C-471/07 and C-472/07), Servier Benelux SA (C-471/07 and C-472/07), Janssen Cilag SA (C-471/07), Sanofi-Aventis Belgiu, previously Sanofi-Synthelabo SA (C-472/07) v État belge (Directive 89/105/EEC — Transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use — Article 4(1) — Direct effect — Price freeze)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 January 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — Association générale de l’industrie du médicament (AGIM) ASBL (C-471/07 and C-472/07), Bayer SA (C-471/07 and C-472/07), Pfizer SA (C-471/07 and C-472/07), Servier Benelux SA (C-471/07 and C-472/07), Janssen Cilag SA (C-471/07), Sanofi-Aventis Belgiu, previously Sanofi-Synthelabo SA (C-472/07) v État belge
   (Joined Cases C-471/07 and C-472/07) (1)

   (Directive 89/105/EEC - Transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use - Article 4(1) - Direct effect - Price freeze)
   2010/C 63/03
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d'État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Association générale de l’industrie du médicament (AGIM) ASBL (C-471/07 and C-472/07), Bayer SA (C-471/07 and C-472/07), Pfizer SA (C-471/07 and C-472/07), Servier Benelux SA (C-471/07 and C-472/07), Janssen Cilag SA (C-471/07), Sanofi-Aventis Belgium, previously Sanofi-Synthelabo SA (C-472/07)

      Defendant: État belge

      In the presence of: Sanofi-Aventis Belgium SA (C-471/07)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8) — Price freeze in respect of medicinal products imposed by the competent authorities of a Member State — Scope of the obligation on the Member State to carry out a review, at least once a year, to ascertain whether the ‘macro-economic’ conditions justify that that freeze be continued — Review only as to whether healthcare expenditure is manageable, or need to take account of the macro-economic effects of the price freeze on the pharmaceutical industry?

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the Member States to determine, in compliance with the objective of transparency pursued by that directive and the requirements laid down by that provision, the criteria on the basis of which the review of macro-economic conditions which is referred to in that provision is to be carried out, provided that those criteria are based on objective and verifiable factors.

               2.

               Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105 must be interpreted as not being, so far as its subject-matter is concerned, sufficiently precise for an individual to be able to rely on it before a national court against a Member State.

               3.

               Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may, 18 months after the end of a general price freeze in respect of refundable medicinal products which lasted eight years, adopt a new measure freezing the prices of medicinal products without carrying out the review of macro-economic conditions which is provided for in that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Case C-172/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Emiliano Orru' v Ministero dell’Interno

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/32

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Emiliano Orru' v Ministero dell’Interno
      (Case C-172/10)
      (2010/C 161/46)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Emiliano Orru’

         Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

         Question referred

      Is a national system under national legislation (introduced as from the Bersani Decree, Decree-Law No 223 of 4 July 2006, converted into Law No 248 of 4 August 2006) compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty, when it, inter alia:

                  (a)

                  tends generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period following a tendering procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators;

                  (b)

                  in fact ensures the maintenance of acquired commercial positions (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence);

                  (c)

                  provides for cases in which the licence may lapse when the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross- border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence?


title: Case T-707/15: Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Souruh v Council

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/30

         Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Souruh v Council
   (Case T-707/15)
   (2016/C 059/33)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               as a consequence, order the European Union to repair all of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant at an amount to be fixed equitably by the Court;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging, first, the non-material harm caused by harm to its reputation, and, second, the material harm caused by the breakdown of its contractual relationships, by the loss of equipment and by the loss of revenue, which the applicant has suffered as a direct causal link to the measures taken by the Council of the European Union, for which the Council is liable.


title: Case T-138/09: Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2010 — Muñoz Arraiza v OHIM — Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Calificada Rioja (RIOJAVINA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark RIOJAVINA — Earlier Community collective figurative mark RIOJA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2010 — Muñoz Arraiza v OHIM — Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Calificada Rioja (RIOJAVINA)
   (Case T-138/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark RIOJAVINA - Earlier Community collective figurative mark RIOJA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 209/57
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Félix Muñoz Arraiza (Logroño, Spain) (represented by: J. Grimau Muñoz and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J.F. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Calificada Rioja (Logroño) (represented by: J.I. Martínez De Torre, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2009 (Case R 721/2008-2) concerning opposition proceedings between the Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Calificada Rioja and Félix Muñoz Arraiza.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Félix Muñoz Arraiza to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.