title: Case C-539/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 25 October 2016 — Richard Rodriguez Serin v HOP!-Regional

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 25 October 2016 — Richard Rodriguez Serin v HOP!-Regional
   (Case C-539/16)
   (2017/C 030/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Richard Rodriguez Serin

      Defendant: HOP!-Regional

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 5(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ also covers a claim for compensation made under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No [295/91] (2) brought against an operating air carrier which is not a party to the contract with the passengers concerned?

               2.

               Insofar as Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 is applicable:
               When passengers are transported on two flights without any significant stopover at the connecting airport, is the final destination of the passengers to be regarded as being the place where the services were provided under the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, even if the claim advanced in the application for compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 is based on the disruption of the first leg of the journey and the claim has been brought against the air carrier which operated the first flight, which is not a party to the contract of carriage?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case C-290/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof of the Republic of Austria, by a decision of that court of 27 June 2000 in the case of Johann Franz Duchon v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten

text:
C 285/2                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.10.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches                     21 June 2000, which was received at the Court Registry on
Finanzgericht by order of that court of 21 February 2000                 24 July 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fincantieri
in the case of Medi Bayreuth Weihermüller & Voigtmann                    — Cantieri Navali Italiani SpA and Finmeccanica SpA v
     GmbH & Co. KG v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz                         Federico Bianchi and Others, on the following questions:
                         (Case C-263/00)
                                                                         Must Articles 1(2)(e) and 2(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                         No 3541/92 (1) of 7 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning
                         (2000/C 285/03)                                 that Italian natural persons (in this case the respondent
                                                                         lawyers) are not permitted, in reliance on a transfer of a claim
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   pro solvendo (for payment of fees for legal representation) by an
European Communities by order of the Hessiches Finanzger-                Iraqi subject (in this case Rafidain Bank), to require in Italy
icht (Finance Court, Hessen) of 21 February 2000, received at            from an Italian legal person (in this case Fincantieri and
the Court Registry on 28 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling             Finmeccanica) payment in respect of an award of costs to the
in the case of Medi Bayreuth Weihermüller & Voigtmann                    Iraqi subject (the transferor of the claim) contained in an Italian
GmbH & Co. KG v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz (Principal                   judgment which has become res judicata?
Revenue Office, Koblenz) on the following questions:
a)    Does the description ‘orthopaedic appliances’ within the
      meaning of CN Code No 9021 cover functional knee                   (1) OJ L 361 of 10.12.1992, p. 1.
      supports with tracking stays and functional knee orthoses
      with a supportive effect, consisting essentially of neo-
      prene, with two removable aluminium side stays, 30 cm
      and 37 cm long respectively, with extension-limited
      polycentric joints and two Velcro fastening straps, where
      proper use of each of the above appliances requires an
      individual setting of the joints with extension-limiting
      wedges?
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
b)    Does the term ‘solely’, used in Note 1(b) of CN Chapter 90
                                                                         Gerichtshof of the Republic of Austria, by a decision of
      and in Note 2(b) to CN Chapters 61 and 62 allow the
                                                                         that court of 27 June 2000 in the case of Johann Franz
      elasticity of the material to be regarded as the sole relevant
                                                                         Duchon v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten
      criterion even if the supportive function is strengthened
      by other materials?
                                                                                (Case C-290/00)
c)    If Question b) is answered in the affirmative:
      Is General Rule A.3(b) in the General rules for the                                         (2000/C 285/05)
      interpretation of the comined nomenclature suitable for
      determining the question when the supportive function              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      of the other materials is predominant, or what other               European Communities by a decision of the Oberster Gerichts-
      criteria should be used to determine the question?                 hof (Supreme Court) of the Republic of Austria of 27 June
                                                                         2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 24 July
                                                                         2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Johann Franz
                                                                         Duchon v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten on
                                                                         the following questions:
                                                                         1.    Does the situation of an employed person who, as a
                                                                               national of a country which is now a Member State, was
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello                     employed prior to the accession of that Member State in
di Genova, First Civil Division, by order of that court of                     another Member State and sustained an accident there,
21 June 2000 in the case of Fincantieri — Cantieri Navali                      fall within the scope of Council Regulation (EEC)
Italiani SpA and Finmeccanica SpA v Federico Bianchi                           No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971(1) on the application of
                            and Others                                         social security schemes to employed persons, to self-
                                                                               employed persons and to members of their families
                         (Case C-289/00)                                       moving within the Community, as amended and updated
                                                                               by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June
                                                                               1983 (2), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
                         (2000/C 285/04)
                                                                               No 1249/92 of 30 April 1992 (3), where the person
                                                                               concerned applies for an occupational disability pension
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         after the accession of the Member State and the accident
European Communities by an order of First Civil Division of                    at work can have the effect of establishing entitlement to
the Corte di Appello di Genova (Genoa Appeal Court) of                         an occupational disability pension?
 ---pagebreak--- 7.10.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 285/3
If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:                 May a Member State continue, in particular after the adoption
                                                                            of Directive 92/51/EEC on a second general recognition
                                                                            system (1), to reserve an activity allied to medicine, such as that
2.    Are Articles 48(2) and 51 of the EC Treaty (now                       of a non-medical practitioner under the German Heilpraktiker-
      Articles 39(2) and 42 EC) and Regulation (EEC)                        gesetz (Law on non-medical practitioners, RGBl I 251/1939)
      No 1408/71 to be interpreted as precluding national                   in the version currently in force, to holders of the diploma of
      rules which, for the qualifying period for a benefit                  doctor, or is that now precluded in particular by Article 43
      stemming from the insurance contingency of reduced                    EC (formerly Article 52 of the EC Treaty) on freedom of
      capacity for work not to apply, require not only that the             establishment and Article 50 EC (formerly Article 60 of the EC
      insurance contingency is the result of an accident at work,           Treaty) on freedom to provide services?
      but also that the insurance contingency materialised in
      respect of a person insured compulsorily with a pension
      insurance institution under the (Austrian) Allgemeines                Do the said provisions of European law preclude national
      Sozialversicherungsgesetz (General Law on Social Secur-               provisions which reserve training for activities which are
      ity) (ASVG) or another (Austrian) federal law or in respect           regulated by legal provisions in the field of health to the
      of a person insured privately under Paragraph 19a of the              institutions designated for that purpose and prohibit the
      (Austrian) Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz (ASVG)               offering or procuring of such training by other persons or
      and therefore do not cover accidents at word sustained                institutions and advertising therefor, even if that training
      during employment in other Member States?                             relates only to certain branches of medical activity?
3.    Are Articles 48(2) and 51 of the EC Treaty (now
      Articles 39(2) and 42 EC) to be interpreted as contrary to
      Article 9a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and national                (1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 25.
      rules which preclude in general any prolongation of the
      reference period in respect of the period during which a
      pension is received or limits such prolongation to cases
      of entitlement to a pension stemming from the statutory
      accident insurance of the Member State concerned?
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 2.
(2) OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6.                                                    Action brought on 1 August 2000 by the Commission of
(3) OJ 1992 136, p. 28.                                                       the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-295/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 285/07)
                                                                            An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 August
                                                                            2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, and Bernard
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster                        Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 13 July                     for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
2000 in the case of Deutsche Paracelsus Schulsen für                        Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
          Naturheilverfahren GmbH v Kurt Gräbner
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (Case C-294/00)
                                                                            (a)   declare that, by maintaining in force a tax payable by
                                                                                passengers disembarking or embarking in the ports of
                          (2000/C 285/06)                                         Genoa, Naples and Trieste where those passengers arrive
                                                                                from, or are travelling to, ports in another Member State
                                                                                or a third country, whereas no such tax is levied in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            case of carriage between two ports located on Italian
European Communities by an order of the Oberster Gerichts-                        territory, the Italian Republic has failed to comply with
hof (Supreme Court), Austria, of 13 July 2000, which was                          its obligations under Article 1 of Council Regulation
received at the Court Registry on 31 July 2000, for a prelimi-                    (EEC) No 4055/86 (1) of 22 December 1986 applying the
nary ruling in the case of Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für                        principle of freedom to provide services to maritime
Naturheilverfahren GmbH v Kurt Gräbner on the following                           transport between Member States and between Member
questions:                                                                        States and third countries;


title: Case C-424/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 1 August 2016 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Franco Vomero

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 1 August 2016 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Franco Vomero
   (Case C-424/16)
   (2016/C 350/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Defendant: Franco Vomero

      Questions referred

               1.

               Whether enhanced protection under article 28.3(a) (1) depends upon the possession of a right of permanent residence within article 16 and article 28.2.
               If the answer to question one is in the negative, the following questions are also referred:

               2.

               Whether the period of residence for the previous ten years, to which article 28(3)(a) refers, is

                           a.

                           a simple calendar period looking back from the relevant date (here that of the decision to deport), including in it any periods of absence or imprisonment,

                           b.

                           a potentially non-continuous period, derived by looking back from the relevant date and adding together period(s) when the relevant person was not absent or in prison, to arrive, if possible, at a total of ten years’ previous residence,

               3.

               What the true relationship is between the ten year residence test to which article 28(3)(a) refers and the overall assessment of an integrative link.

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

      OJ L 158, p. 77


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 27 November 1997 in Case C-62/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Registration of vessels - Nationality requirement for the owner)

text:
7.2.98                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 41/3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                           Articles 6, 48, 52, 58 and 221 of the EC Treaty,
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                     Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of the
                                                                           Commission of 29 June 1970 on the right of workers
                    of 27 November 1997                                    to remain in the territory of a Member State after
                                                                           having been employed in that State and Article 7 of
       in Case C-62/96: Commission of the European                         Council Directive 75/34/EEC of 17 December 1974
            Communities v. Hellenic Republic (1)                           concerning the right of nationals of a Member State to
                                                                           remain in the territory of another Member State after
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                                                                           having pursued therein an activity in a self-employed
Registration of vessels Ð Nationality requirement for the
                                                                           capacity;
                            owner)
                         (98/C 41/04)
                                                                      2. orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                (Language of the case: Greek)                         (1) OJ C 158, 1.6.1996.
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
In Case C-62/96: Commission of the European                                               of 27 November 1997
Communities (Agents: Frank Benyon and Maria Condou
Durande) v. Hellenic Republic (Agents: Aikaterini Samoni-                    in Case C-137/96: Commission of the European
Randou, assisted by Evi Skandalou and Stamatina Vodina)                     Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (1)
Ð application for a declaration that, by maintaining in
force legislative provisions which restrict the right to              (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
registration in the Greek shipping registers to vessels more                   Non-transposition of Directive 91/414/EEC)
than half the shares in which are owned by Greek
nationals or owned by Greek legal persons more than half                                        (98/C 41/05)
of whose capital is held by Greek nationals, the Hellenic
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6,
48, 52, 58 and 221 of the EC Treaty, Article 7 of
Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of the Commission of                                     (Language of the case: German)
29 June 1970 on the right of workers to remain in the
territory of a Member State after having been employed in
that State (OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (II), p. 402)
and Article 7 of Council Directive 75/34/EEC of
17 December 1974 concerning the right of nationals of a                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Member State to remain in the territory of another                              published in the European Court Reports)
Member State after having pursued therein an activity in a
self-employed capacity (OJ L 14, 20.1.1975, p. 10) Ð the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
                                                                      In Case C-137/96: Commission of the European
President of the First Chamber, acting as President of the
                                                                      Communities (Agent: Klaus-Dieter Borchardt) against
Fifth Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O.
                                                                      Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder and
Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; G.
                                                                      Sabine Maaû) Ð application for a declaration that, by not
Tesauro, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
                                                                      adopting within the period prescribed all the laws,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                      regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the
27 November 1997, in which it:
                                                                      transposition into domestic law of Council Directive 91/
                                                                      414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant
                                                                      protection products on the market (OJ L 230, 19.8.1991,
                                                                      p. 1), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil
1. declares that, by maintaining in force legislative                 its obligations under the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth
     provisions which restrict the right to registration in the       Chamber) composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
     Greek shipping registers to vessels more than half the           Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J.-P.
     shares in which are owned by Greek nationals or                  Puissochet (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La
     owned by Greek legal persons more than half of                   Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a
     whose capital is held by Greek nationals, the Hellenic           judgment on 27 November 1997, in which it:


               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/36

         (2006/C 36/75)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 22, 28.1.2006

   Past publications

      OJ C 10, 14.1.2006

      OJ C 330, 24.12.2005

      OJ C 315, 10.12.2005

      OJ C 296, 26.11.2005

      OJ C 281, 12.11.2005

      OJ C 271, 29.10.2005

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-232/05: Action brought on 26 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/12

         Action brought on 26 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
   (Case C-232/05)
   (2005/C 171/20)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Christophe Giolito, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to execute, within the prescribed period, the Commission decision of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by the French Republic to Scott Paper SA Kimberly-Clark (State aid CR 38/1998, ex NN 52/1998) (OJ 2002 L 12, p. 1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty and Articles 2 and 3 of that decision;

               2.

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The French authorities have not done what is necessary to ensure the correct, immediate and effective execution of the decision in accordance with national procedures, contrary to Article 14(1) and (3) 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 (1) which provides that the Member State is to take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary. The decision of the national court runs counter to its obligation to give practical effect to Community law, and under French law it is not possible to take interim measures to offset the automatic effect of the stay of proceedings.
   The position of the French authorities appears to be contrary to the duty to cooperate in good faith as defined in Article 10 EC. France did not reply to the Commission's letter of 21 November 2003 despite three reminders and a meeting held between the Commission's DG Competition and the French authorities to go over the French cases of recovery of State aid. In particular, in spite of the fact that the Commission asked France several times for a copy of the order staying the proceedings, it never obtained one. The Commission therefore remains uncertain with regard to the exact progress of the recovery proceedings. That doubt is moreover increased by the fact that information obtained from unofficial sources in July 2004 by the Commission shows that the order staying the proceedings was never made, contrary to the assertions of the French authorities. In those circumstances, the Commission is unable to deal with the recovery in a spirit of cooperation in good faith as defined by the case-law of the Court.

      (1)  OJ L 83 of 27.03.1999, p. 1.


title: Case T-196/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Edison v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the infringement — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Edison v Commission
   (Case T-196/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the infringement - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
   2011/C 226/43
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Edison S.p.A. (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, R. Casati, M. Beretta, P. Merlino and E. Bruti Liberati, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by V. Di Bucci and F. Amato, and subsequently by V. Di Bucci and V. Bottka, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate), in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate), in so far as it concerns Edison SpA.;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case T-385/13 P: Order of the General Court of 19 December 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible — Application lodged by fax and original subsequently received not the same — Original application lodged out of time — Action out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/37

         Order of the General Court of 19 December 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-385/13 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil Service - Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible - Application lodged by fax and original subsequently received not the same - Original application lodged out of time - Action out of time - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   2014/C 52/70
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis Kayser and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 May 2013 in Case F-17/12 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 284, 28.9.2013.


5.5.2001              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 134/13
       Removal from the register of Case C-458/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-106/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 134/25)                                                    (2001/C 134/27)
By order of 13 February 2001 the President of the Court of         By order of 16 February 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of, the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-458/99: Commission of the              from the register of Case C-106/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.                          European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-446/99 (1)
                       (2001/C 134/26)                                    Removal from the register of Case C-342/00 (1)
By order of 15 February 2001 the President of the Court of                                (2001/C 134/28)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-446/99: Commission of the              By order of 6 March 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
European Communities v Republic of Austria.                        of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                   the register of Case C-342/00: Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.                                          Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.


title: Case T-131/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Teughels v Commission (Appeal — Cross-appeal — Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposal to add years of pensionable service — Act not having an adverse effect — Inadmissibility of the action at first instance — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/45

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Teughels v Commission
   (Case T-131/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Cross-appeal - Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Proposal to add years of pensionable service - Act not having an adverse effect - Inadmissibility of the action at first instance - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations))
   (2015/C 398/56)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Catherine Teughels (Eppegem, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel and B. Braun, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Full Court) in Teughels v Commission (F-117/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:196), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 11 December 2013 in Teughels v Commission (F-117/11).

               2.

               Dismisses the action brought by Catherine Teughels before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-117/11.

               3.

               Orders Ms Teughels to bear her own costs on appeal and to pay those incurred by the European Commission on appeal, and orders the Commission to bear its own costs associated with the cross-appeal.

               4.

               Orders Ms Teughels and the Commission each to bear their own costs at first instance.

      (1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.


title: Case T-221/15: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2017 — Arbuzov v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Retention of the applicant’s name on the list — Principle of sound administration — Rights of defence — Duty to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2017 — Arbuzov v Council
   (Case T-221/15) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Retention of the applicant’s name on the list - Principle of sound administration - Rights of defence - Duty to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property))
   (2017/C 277/48)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Sergej Arbuzov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Machytková and V. Fišar, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of (i) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 25), (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 1), (iii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 76) and (iv) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Sergej Arbuzov to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.


title: Case T-494/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2006 — Neirinck v Commission (Officials — Contract agent — Lawyer's post at the Office for infrastructure and logistics in Brussels (OIB) — Rejection of application — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/56

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2006 — Neirinck v Commission
   (Case T-494/04) (1)

   (Officials - Contract agent - Lawyer's post at the Office for infrastructure and logistics in Brussels (OIB) - Rejection of application - Action for annulment - Action for damages)
   (2006/C 326/121)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Wineke Neirinck (Brussels, Belgium) (represented, initially, by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein, and subsequently by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, D. Martin and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents, and F. Herbert and L. Eskenazi, lawyers)
   Re:
   First, an application for annulment of the Commission's decisions concerning the rejection of the applicant's candidature for a lawyer's post in the buildings policy sector in the Office for infrastructure and logistics in Brussels (OIB) and the appointment of another candidate to that post and, second, a claim for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands Raad van State by order of that court of 25 November 1997 in the case of Vereniging Dorpsbelang Hees, Stichting Werkgroep Weurt, Vereniging Stedelijk Leefmilieu Nijmegen v. Director of the Environmental and Water Services Department, Gelderland (Case C-419/97)

text:
20.2.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 55/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             (a) In regard to the building and demolition waste
                                                                             from which the chips are produced, operations
                                                                             are carried out already at an earlier stage than
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                    burning which are to be regarded as a discarding
    or administrative provisions necessary to comply with                    of the waste, namely operations (recycling
    Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on                          operations) to render the waste suitable for reuse
    the minimum safety and health requirements for                           (use as a fuel)?
    improved medical treatment on board vessels (1), the
    Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             If so, is an operation to render waste suitable for
    obligations under that Directive,
                                                                             reuse (recycling operation) to be regarded as an
                                                                             operation for recovery of waste only if that
                                                                             operation is expressly mentioned in Annex II B of
Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                             Directive 75/442/EEC, or also if that operation is
                                                                             analogous to an operation mentioned in
                                                                             Annex II B?
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        (b) Wood chips constitute waste under contemporary
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with                       thinking whereby it is of particular relevance
those relied upon in Case C-406/97 (2); the time-limit for                   whether they may be recovered in an
transposition expired on 31 December 1994.                                   environmentally responsible manner for use as
                                                                             fuel without further processing?
(1) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992, p. 19.
(2) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998, p. 11.                                           (c)  The use of wood chips as a fuel is comparable
                                                                             with an accepted method of waste recovery?
                                                                   (1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands
Raad van State by order of that court of 25 November
1997 in the case of Vereniging Dorpsbelang Hees,
Stichting    Werkgroep Weurt, Vereniging Stedelijk                 Appeal brought on 12 December 1997 by SocieÂteÂ
Leefmilieu Nijmegen v. Director of the Environmental and           anonyme des traverses en beÂton armeÂ (SATEBA) against
           Water Services Department, Gelderland                   the order made on 29 September 1997 by the First
                       (Case C-419/97)                             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities in Case T-83/97 between SocieÂteÂ anonyme
                          (98/C 55/32)                             de traverses en beÂton armeÂ (SATEBA) and the
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-422/97 P)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Netherlands Raad                                        (98/C 55/33)
van State (Council of State) of 25 November 1997,
received at the Court Registry on 11 December 1997, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Vereniging Dorpsbelang         An appeal against the order made on 29 September 1997
Hees, Stichting Werkgroep Weurt, Vereniging Stedelijk              by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Leefmilieu Nijmegen v. Director of the Environmental and           European Communities in Case T-83/97 between SocieÂteÂ
Water Services Department, Gelderland, on the following            anonyme de traverses en beÂton armeÂ (SATEBA) and the
questions:                                                         Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                   before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                   on 12 December 1997 by SocieÂteÂ anonyme de traverses en
1. May it be inferred from the mere fact that wood chips           beÂton armeÂ (SATEBA), represented by Jacques Manseau,
    undergo an operation listed in Annex II B to Directive         of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
    75/442/EEC (1) that that substance has been discarded          Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 rue
    so as to enable it to be regarded as waste for the             Mathias Hardt.
    purposes of Directive 75/442/EEC?
                                                                   The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the
2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative, does           order of the Court of First Instance of 29 September 1997
    the reply to the question whether the use of wood              in Case T-83/97 (1) on the grounds of (i) erroneous
    chips as a fuel is to be regarded as constituting              interpretation of the provisions of the EC Treaty and, in
    discarding depend on whether:                                  particular, Articles 155, 169 and 86 thereof and of


title: Case T-393/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Westfälische Drahtindustrie and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information — Complex infringement — Single and continuous infringement — Distancing — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Equal treatment — Principle that penalties must fit the offence — Assessment of the ability to pay — 2002 Commission notice on cooperation — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Westfälische Drahtindustrie and Others v Commission
   (Case T-393/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information - Complex infringement - Single and continuous infringement - Distancing - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Equal treatment - Principle that penalties must fit the offence - Assessment of the ability to pay - 2002 Commission notice on cooperation - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction))
   (2015/C 302/43)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH (Hamm, Germany); Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Hamm); Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented initially by C. Stadler and N. Tkatchenko, and subsequently by C. Stadler and S. Budde, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, R. Sauer and C. Hödlmayr, Agents, and M. Buntscheck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment and alteration of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011, and application for annulment of the letter of 14 February 2011 of the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Competition of the Commission.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate in the present action in respect of the amount of the reduction granted to Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH and Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG in Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010;

               2.

               Annuls Article 2(8) of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011;

               3.

               Annuls the letter of 14 February 2011 of the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Competition of the Commission;

               4.

               Imposes a fine of EUR 1 5 4 85  000, on a joint and several basis, on Westfälische Drahtindustrie, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. and Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co.;

               5.

               Imposes a fine of EUR 2 3 3 70  000, on a joint and several basis, on Westfälische Drahtindustrie and Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co.;

               6.

               Imposes a fine of EUR 7 6 95  000 on Westfälische Drahtindustrie;

               7.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               8.

               Orders Westfälische Drahtindustrie, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. and Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. to bear half of their own costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay half of the costs incurred by Westfälische Drahtindustrie, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. and Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co., including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court of 9 May 2014 in Case E-23/13 — Hellenic Capital Market Commission (HCMC) (Directive 2003/6/EC — Admissibility — Judicial or administrative function — Information request — Requirement in national law to set out the facts that give rise to the suspicion)

text:
               12.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/15

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 9 May 2014
   in Case E-23/13
   Hellenic Capital Market Commission (HCMC)
   (Directive 2003/6/EC — Admissibility — Judicial or administrative function — Information request — Requirement in national law to set out the facts that give rise to the suspicion)
   (2015/C 49/08)
   In Case E-23/13 Hellenic Capital Market Commission (HCMC) — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice from the Administrative Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein (Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein) concerning the interpretation of Article 16 of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse), the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 9 May 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:
   A requirement that obliges the authority requesting information in accordance with Article 16 of Directive 2003/6/EC to specify the facts giving rise to the suspicion is not compatible with Directive 2003/6/EC.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 5 February 2002 in Case C-277/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Doris Kaske v Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Wien (Social security for migrant workers — Unemployment insurance — Replacing social security conventions concluded between Member States with Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Preservation of advantages enjoyed previously as a result of a combination of domestic law and the law of the relevant convention — Free movement of workers)

text:
4.5.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 109/3
      —     by incompletely transposing Council Directive                  hereinafter ‘Rönfeldt’) to unemployment benefit and, secondly,
            89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system              the interpretation of Articles 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty (now,
            for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded       after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 42 EC), the Court (Sixth
            on completion of professional education and training of        Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber,
            at least three years’ duration, inasmuch as no rules have      N. Colneric, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and
            been laid down to regulate the conduct of the aptitude test    V. Skouris, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,
            for lawyers from other Member States,                          Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 February 2002, in which
                                                                           it has ruled:
      the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Articles 52 and 59 of the Treaty and Directive 89/48;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                           1.    The principles laid down by the Court in Rönfeldt (Case
3.    Orders the Italian Republic and the Commission of the                      C-277/89) permitting non-application of the provisions of
      European Communities to bear their own costs.                              Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June
                                                                                1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                        persons and their families moving within the Community, to
                                                                                allow for continued application of a bilateral convention which
                                                                                that regulation would otherwise have replaced to a worker who
                                                                                is a national of a Member State also apply where the worker
                                                                                exercised the right to freedom of movement before the regulation
                                                                                entered into force and before the EC Treaty became applicable
                                                                                in his Member State of origin.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                           2.    If periods of insurance or employment that entitle a worker who
                                                                                is a national of a Member State to the unemployment benefit
                          5 February 2002                                        claimed by him began to run before the entry into force of
                                                                                Regulation No 1408/71, his situation must be assessed in the
in Case C-277/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                        light of the provisions of the bilateral convention for the entire
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Doris Kaske v Landesge-                             period during which he was exercising his right to freedom of
        schäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Wien (1)                           movement, and taking into account all the periods of insurance
                                                                                or employment completed by him regardless of whether those
(Social security for migrant workers — Unemployment                              periods preceded or succeeded the entry into force of the Treaty
insurance — Replacing social security conventions concluded                      and of Regulation No 1408/71 in his Member State of origin.
between Member States with Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71                           If, however, after having exhausted all his rights under the
— Preservation of advantages enjoyed previously as a result                      convention, he exercises his right to freedom of movement anew,
of a combination of domestic law and the law of the relevant                     and if he completes further periods of insurance or employment
           convention — Free movement of workers)                                entirely after the entry into force of Regulation No 1408/71,
                                                                                his new situation is governed by that regulation.
                           (2002/C 109/04)
                    (Language of the case: German)                         3.    National law may contain more favourable rules than Com-
                                                                                munity law provided that they comply with the principles of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           Community law. A rule in a Member State which, for the
                    in the European Court Reports)                               purposes of the criteria for entitlement to unemployment benefit,
                                                                                favours workers who spent 15 years in that Member State
                                                                                before their last employment abroad is incompatible with
                                                                                Article 48 of the Treaty.
In Case C-277/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Doris Kaske and Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice
Wien, on the possible application of a convention relating
to unemployment insurance concluded between the Federal                    (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
Republic of Germany and the Republic of Austria on unem-
ployment benefit, in place of Articles 3, 6, 67 and 71 of
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971
on the application of social security schemes to employed
persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ,
English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416), by extending the
decision in Rönfeldt (Case C-227/89 [1991] ECR I-323,


title: Case T-137/05: Action brought on 1 April 2005 by LA PERLA S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/34

         Action brought on 1 April 2005 by LA PERLA S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-137/05)
   (2005/C 132/62)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 April 2004 by LA PERLA S.p.A., represented by Renzo Maria Morresi and Alberto Dal Ferro, lawyers.
   Cielo Brands — Gestao e Investimentos Lda. was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in full the contested decision reinstating the decision of the Cancellation Division and therefore declaring the contested trade mark invalid;

               —

               order Cielo Brands — Gestao e Investimentos Lda to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the previous two sets of proceedings before OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity is sought:

               The word mark NIMEI LA PERLA MODERN CLASSIC — Application for registration no 713.446 in respect of goods in Class 14 (jewellery, gold articles, watches; precious metals; pearls; precious stones).

               Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

               Cielo Brands — Gestao e Investimentos Lda

               Applicant for declaration of invalidity:

               The applicant

               Trade mark or sign right of applicant:

               Italian trade marks:

                           —

                           La PERLA (Figurative trade mark no. 769.526), in respect of goods in Class 25.

                           —

                           LA PERLA PARFUMS (Word mark no 776.082), in respect of goods in Class 3.

                           —

                           La PERLA (Figurative trade mark no. 804.992) in respect of goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 24, 25 and 35.

                           —

                           La PERLA (Figurative trade mark no GE2000 C 000428) in respect of goods in Class 3.

                           —

                           La PERLA (Figurative trade mark no GE2002 C 000181) in respect of goods in Class 3.

               Decision of the Cancellation Division:

               Granting the application for a declaration of invalidity and a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Granting the appeal and annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division.

               Pleas in law:

                           —

                           Infringement of Article 8(5) and (1)(a) and (b) and Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

                           —

                           Infringement of Rule 50(2)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Regulation No 40/94.


title: Case C-138/14 P: Appeal brought on 21 March 2014 by Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina and Gęsina Wojciech against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 22 January 2014 in Case T-468/12, Faktor B. i W. Gęsina v Commission

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/11

         Appeal brought on 21 March 2014 by Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina and Gęsina Wojciech against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 22 January 2014 in Case T-468/12, Faktor B. i W. Gęsina v Commission
   (Case C-138/14 P)
   (2014/C 462/18)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina and Gęsina Wojciech (represented by: H. Mackiewicz, adwocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   By order of 30 September 2014, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina und Gęsina Wojciech to bear its own costs.


title: Case C-426/08: Order of the President of the Court of 2 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Cyprus

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 2 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Cyprus
   (Case C-426/08) (1)

   2009/C 205/52

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Case T-238/99: Order of the Court of First Instance of  8 March 2006  — Service Station Veger v Commission (Application initiating proceedings — Procedural requirements — Action manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/21

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 March 2006 — Service Station Veger v Commission
   (Case T-238/99) (1)

   (Application initiating proceedings - Procedural requirements - Action manifestly inadmissible)
   (2006/C 108/38)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Service station V/H J.P. Veger (Maria Hoop, the Netherlands) (represented by: P. Brouwers, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and H. Speyart initially, then G. Rozet and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 1999/705/EC of 20 July 1999 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for 633 Dutch service stations located near the German border (OJ 1999 L 280, p. 87)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed.

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2000.


title: Case T-441/13: Action brought on 20 August 2013 — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/39

         Action brought on 20 August 2013 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-441/13)
   2013/C 325/64
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Eyad Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: C. Rygaert and G. Karouni, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-383/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)

      (1)  OJ 2011 C 282, p.30.


title: Case C-68/08: Order of the President of the Court of 16 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/18

         Order of the President of the Court of 16 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-68/08) (1)

   (2009/C 6/34)

      Language of the case: Estonian

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

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case C-210/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Ítélőtábla (Court of Appeal Szeged) lodged on  5 May 2006  — CARTESIO Oktató és Szolgáltató Betéti Társaság

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Ítélőtábla (Court of Appeal Szeged) lodged on 5 May 2006 — CARTESIO Oktató és Szolgáltató Betéti Társaság
   (Case C-210/06)
   (2006/C 165/31)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Referring court
   Szegedi Ítélőtábla (Court of Appeal Szeged)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CARTESIO Oktató és Szolgáltató Betéti Társaság
   Question(s) referred

               1.

               Is a court of second instance which has to give a decision on an appeal against a decision of a commercial court (cégbíróság) in proceedings to amend a registration, entitled to make a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 of the Treaty of Rome, where neither the action before the commercial court nor the appeal procedure is inter parties?

               2.

               In so far as an appeal court is included in the concept of ‘court or tribunal which is entitled to make a reference for a preliminary ruling’ under Article 234 of the Treaty of Rome, must that court be regarded as a court against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy, which has an obligation, under Article 234 of the Treaty of Rome, to submit questions on the interpretation of community law to the Court of Justice of the European Communities?

               3.

               Does a national measure which, in accordance with national law, confers a right to bring an appeal against an order for a preliminary reference, limit the power of the Hungarian courts to refer questions for a preliminary ruling or could it limit that power — derived directly from Article 234 of the Treaty of Rome — if, in appeal proceedings the national superior court may amend the order, render the request for a preliminary ruling inoperative and order the court which issued the order for reference to resume the national proceedings which had been suspended?

               4.

                           A.

                           If a company, constituted in Hungary under Hungarian company law and entered in the Hungarian commercial register, wishes to transfer its registered office to another Member State of the European Union, is the regulation of this field within the scope of Community law or, in the absence of the harmonisation of laws, is national law exclusively applicable?

                           B.

                           May a Hungarian company request transfer of its registered office to another Member State of the European Union relying directly on community law (Articles 43 and 48 of the Treaty of Rome)? If the answer is affirmative, may the transfer of the registered office be made subject to any kind of condition or authorisation by the Member State of origin or the host Member State?

                           C.

                           May Articles 43 and 48 of the Treaty of Rome be interpreted as meaning that a national rules or national practices which differentiate between commercial companies with respect to the exercise of their rights, according to the Member State in which their registered office is situated, is incompatible with Community law?


title: Case C-567/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 2 November 2015 — LitSpecMet UAB v Vilniaus lokomotyvų remonto depas UAB

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 2 November 2015 — LitSpecMet UAB v Vilniaus lokomotyvų remonto depas UAB
   (Case C-567/15)
   (2016/C 027/15)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Vilniaus apygardos teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: LitSpecMet UAB

      Defendant: Vilniaus lokomotyvų remonto depas UAB

      Third party: Plienmetas UAB

      Questions referred

   Must Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a company:

               —

               which has been founded by a contracting authority which engages in activity in the field of rail transport, namely: management of public railway infrastructure; passenger and freight transportation;

               —

               which independently engages in business activity, establishes a business strategy, adopts decisions concerning the conditions of the company’s activity (product market, customer segment and so forth), participates in a competitive market throughout the European Union and outside the EU market, providing the services of rolling stock manufacture and rolling stock repair, and participates in procurement procedures connected with that activity, seeking to obtain orders from third parties (not the parent company);

               —

               which provides rolling stock repair services to its founder on the basis of in-house transactions and the value of those services represents 90 per cent of the company’s entire activity;

               —

               whose services provided to its founder are intended to ensure the founder’s passenger and freight transportation activity;
               is not to be considered to be a contracting authority?

         If the Court of Justice of the European Union determines that the company is to be considered to be a contracting authority in the circumstances set out above, must Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC be interpreted as meaning that the company loses the status of contracting authority where the value of the rolling stock repair services provided on the basis of in-house transactions to the contracting authority which is the company’s founder falls and constitutes less than 90 per cent or not the main part of the total financial turnover from the company’s activity?

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).


title: Case T-288/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Energiewerke Nord v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — National support for the generation of renewable electricity — Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/24

         Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Energiewerke Nord v Commission
   (Case T-288/14 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - State aid - National support for the generation of renewable electricity - Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Prima facie case))
   (2014/C 431/42)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Energiewerke Nord GmbH (Rubenow, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz and B. Wißmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to suspend the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened the State aid formal investigation procedure concerning the German law on renewable energy.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-6/15: Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Ice Mountain Ibiza v EUIPO — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean ibiza) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark ocean ibiza — Earlier national figurative marks OC ocean club and OC ocean club Ibiza — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Ice Mountain Ibiza v EUIPO — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean ibiza)
   (Case T-6/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ocean ibiza - Earlier national figurative marks OC ocean club and OC ocean club Ibiza - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 243/32)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (San Antonio, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Gracia Albero, F. Miazzetto and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL (Puerto Banús, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2014 (Case R 2207/2013-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club and Ice Mountain Ibiza

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.


title: Case C-133/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  23 February 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/26

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-133/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 131/46)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to have transposed, within the prescribed period, Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply, at federal level, with the provisions on discrimination based on disability, in Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and, at Länder level, with the exception of the Länder of Vienna and Lower-Austria, to all the provision of that directive, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 143 of 11.06.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 May 2005 in Case C-283/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven A.H. Kuipers v Productschap Zuivel (Common organisation of the markets — Milk and milk products — Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 — National scheme under which dairies withhold deductions from the price payable to dairy farmers or pay price supplements to them according to the quality of the milk supplied — Incompatibility)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 26 May 2005
   in Case C-283/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven A.H. Kuipers v Productschap Zuivel (1)

   (Common organisation of the markets - Milk and milk products - Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 - National scheme under which dairies withhold deductions from the price payable to dairy farmers or pay price supplements to them according to the quality of the milk supplied - Incompatibility)
   (2005/C 182/14)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-283/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Adminstrative Court for Trade and Industry) (Netherlands), made by dcision of 27 June 2003, received at the Court on 30 June 2003, in the proceedings between A.H. Kuipers and Productschap Zuivel — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, K. Schiemann (Rapporteur) and M. Ilešič, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The common pricing system which forms the basis of the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products instituted by Regulation No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1538/95 of 29 June 1995, prohibits Member States from unilaterally adopting provisions affecting the machinery of price formation at the production and marketing stages established under the common organisation. That is the case with regard to a system such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, whatever its alleged or stated objective may be, institutes a mechanism under which:

               —

               on the one hand, dairies are required to withhold deductions from the price of milk delivered to them when that milk does not meet certain quality criteria and,

               —

               on the other hand, the amount thus withheld over a given period by all the dairies is aggregated before being redistributed, after possible financial adjustments between the dairies, in the form of supplements identical in amount paid by each dairy, per 100 kilogrammes of milk delivered to it during that period, to those dairy farmers alone who have delivered milk meeting those quality criteria.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 06.09.2003.


title: Case F-41/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 October 2015 — FK v CEPOL

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/65

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 October 2015 — FK v CEPOL
   (Case F-41/15) (1)

   (2015/C 381/91)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015, p. 28.


title: Case C-40/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 28 January 2011 — Yoshikazu Iida v City of Ulm

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 28 January 2011 — Yoshikazu Iida v City of Ulm
   (Case C-40/11)
   2011/C 145/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Yoshikazu Iida

      Defendant: City of Ulm

      Questions referred

   A.   Articles 2, 3 and 7 of Directive 2004/38/EC (1)

               1.

               Does ‘family member’ include, in particular in the light of Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’) and Article 8 of the ECHR on a broad interpretation of Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2004/38/EC, a parent who is a third-country national and has custody of a non-dependent child who is a Union citizen enjoying freedom of movement?

               2.

               If so, does Directive 2004/38/EC apply to that parent, in particular in the light of Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter and Article 8 of the ECHR on a broad interpretation of Article 3(1) of the directive, even if he does not ‘accompany’ or ‘join’ the child who is a Union citizen and who has moved away from the Member State of origin?

               3.

               If so, does that parent, in particular in the light of Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter and Article 8 of the ECHR, have a right of residence for more than three months in the Member State of origin of the child who is a Union citizen, on a broad interpretation of Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC, at least where a right of custody exists and is actually exercised?

         B.   Article 6(1) EU in conjunction with the Charter

               1.(a)

               Is the Charter applicable pursuant to the second alternative of the first sentence of Article 51(1) of the Charter if the subject-matter of the dispute depends on a national law (or part of a law) which partly — but not only — transposed directives?

               1.(b)

               If not, is the Charter applicable pursuant to the second alternative of the first sentence of Article 51(1) of the Charter because the applicant could enjoy a right of residence under Union law and could accordingly claim, under the first sentence of Paragraph 5(2) of the Freizügigkeitsgesetz/EU (Law on the Freedom of Movement of Union Citizens), a residence card of a family member of a Union citizen which has its legal basis in the first sentence of Article 10(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC?

               1.(c)

               If not, is the Charter applicable pursuant to the second alternative of the first sentence of Article 51(1) of the Charter, in accordance with the ERT case-law (Case C-260/89, paragraphs 41-45), where a Member State restricts the right of residence of the father who is a third-country national and has custody of a Union citizen who is a minor and resides predominantly in another EU Member State with her mother on account of the latter’s occupation?

               2.(a)

               If the Charter does apply, does Article 24(3) of the Charter directly accord a right of residence under European Union law to the father who is a third-country national, at least if he holds and actually exercises the right of custody of his child who is a Union citizen, even though the child resides predominantly in another EU Member State?

               2.(b)

               If not, does it follow from the freedom of movement of the child who is a Union citizen that under Article 45(1) of the Charter, possibly in conjunction with Article 24(3) of the Charter, the father who is a third-country national has a right of residence under European Union law, at least if he holds and actually exercises the right of custody of his child who is a Union citizen, so that in particular the freedom of movement of the child who is a Union citizen is not deprived of its practical effect?

         C.   Article 6(3) EU in conjunction with the general principles of Union law

               1.

               Can the ‘unwritten’ EU fundamental rights developed in the Court’s case-law from the Stuttgart Stauder case (Case 29/69, paragraph 7) to, for example, Mangold (Case C-144/04, paragraph 75) be fully applied even if the Charter is not applicable in the specific case? In other words, do the fundamental rights which continue to apply as general principles of Union law under Article 6(3) EU stand autonomously and independently alongside the new fundamental rights laid down in the Charter in accordance with Article 6(1) EU?

               2.

               If so, can a right of residence under European Union law be inferred, with a view to the effective exercise of the right of custody, from the general principles of Union law, in particular in the light of the right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the ECHR, for a father, who is a third-country national, of a Union citizen who is a minor and resides predominantly in another EU Member State with her mother on account of the latter’s occupation?

         D.   Article 21(1) TFEU in conjunction with Article 8 of the ECHR

   If Article 6(1) or (3) EU does not accord the applicant a right of residence under European Union law, in accordance with the ruling in Zhu and Chen (Case C-200/02, paragraphs 45-47) can a right of residence under European Union law be inferred, with a view to the effective exercise of the right of custody, from the freedom of movement enjoyed by a Union citizen who is a minor and resides predominantly in another EU Member State with her mother on account of the latter’s occupation, for the father, who is a third-country national, in the Member State of origin of the child?
   E.   Article 10 of Directive 2004/38/EC

   If a right of residence under European Union law is taken to exist, is a parent who is a third-country national in the applicant’s situation entitled to the issue of a ‘residence card of a family member of a Union citizen’, if necessary in accordance with the first sentence of Article 10(1) of the directive?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).


title: Case T-373/16: Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Victaulic Europe v Commission

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/20

         Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Victaulic Europe v Commission
   (Case T-373/16)
   (2016/C 350/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Victaulic Europe (Nazareth, Belgium) (represented by: C. Fairpo, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application for annulment admissible;

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium in as much as the decision incorrectly classifies the excess profit ruling system as a scheme, does not properly identify the alleged state aid measure, incorrectly considers the excess profit ruling as incompatible state aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFUE and incorrectly requires Belgium to recover undefinable sums from recipients of rulings under the excess profit ruling system; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by incorrectly classifying the excess profit ruling system as an aid scheme.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by failing to consider whether the alleged aid awards actually provided an advantage.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in assessing the excess profit ruling system as selective.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the obligation on Belgium to recover the alleged aid awards infringes the principle of legal certainty.


title: Joined Cases T-213/01 and T-214/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2006 — Österreichische Postsparkasse and Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft v Commission (Action for annulment — Competition — Regulation No 17 — Regulation (EC) No 2842/98 — Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC — Hearing Officer — Measure having binding legal effects — Admissibility — Legitimate interest — Standing of applicant or complainant — Client final buyer of goods or services — Access to statements of objections — Confidential information — Sufficient interest)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/16

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2006 — Österreichische Postsparkasse and Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-213/01 and T-214/01) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Competition - Regulation No 17 - Regulation (EC) No 2842/98 - Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC - Hearing Officer - Measure having binding legal effects - Admissibility - Legitimate interest - Standing of applicant or complainant - Client final buyer of goods or services - Access to statements of objections - Confidential information - Sufficient interest)
   (2006/C 190/26)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Österreichische Postsparkasse AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: initially M. Klusmann, F. Wiemer and A. Reidlinger, then H.-J. Niemeyer, lawyers) and Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG (Vienna) (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Rating, Agent)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decisions of the Hearing Officer of 9 August 2001 and 25 July 2001, respectively, to disclose to an Austrian political party (the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs) the non-confidential versions of the statements of objections relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC concerning the fixing of banking tariffs (COMP/36.571-Österreische Banken)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions.

               2.

               Orders the applicants to pay two thirds of the costs of the main proceedings and the whole of the costs of the interlocutory proceedings.

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay one third of the costs of the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 24.11.2001.


title: Case T-272/11: Action brought on 25 May 2011 — Coin v OHIM — Dynamiki Zoi (Fitcoin)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/26

         Action brought on 25 May 2011 — Coin v OHIM — Dynamiki Zoi (Fitcoin)
   (Case T-272/11)
   2011/C 226/54
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Coin SpA (Mestre, Italy) (represented by: P. Perani and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dynamiki Zoi AE (Athens, Greece)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 February 2011 in case R 1836/2010-2;

               —

               Subordinately, annul the challenged decision only as far as CTM application No 3725298 was allowed for goods in class 25; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Fitcoin’, for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 3725298

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 109827, of the figurative mark ‘coin’, for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28 and 35; Community trade mark registration No 3308401, of the figurative mark ‘coin’, for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28 and 35; Community trade mark registration No 3364511, of the figurative mark ‘coinyou’, for goods and services in classes 16, 35 and 36; Italian trade mark registration No 160126, of the figurative mark ‘coin’, for goods in class 25; Italian trade mark registration No 253233, of the figurative mark ‘coin’, for goods in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41; Italian trade mark registration No 240305, of the figurative mark ‘coin’, for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 35, 36 and 41; Italian trade mark registration No 169548, of the figurative mark ‘coin’, for goods in classes 16 and 28; Italian trade mark registration No 240286, of the figurative mark ‘coin’, for goods in class 25; International trade mark registration No R381015, of the figurative mark ‘coin’, for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41; International trade mark registration No R363492, of the figurative mark ‘coin’, for goods and services in classes 16, 28, 35, 36 and 41; International trade mark registration No 260545, of the figurative mark ‘coin’, for goods in class 25; International trade mark registration No R299708, of the figurative mark ‘coin’, for goods and services in classes 35, 36 and 41; International trade mark registration No 299710, of the figurative mark ‘coin’, for goods in classes 16 and 28; International trade mark registration No R363491, of the figurative mark ‘coin’, for goods in class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision and upholded the opposition for goods in classes 28 and 41, and rejected the appeal for the remaining goods and services, therefore, allows the application for goods in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal took account only of one of the possible meanings of the word FIT and found the existence of likelihood of confusion with reference to the main part of the relevant goods and services on the basis of such partial assessment.