title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-501/00: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (Articles 4(c) CS and 67 CS — Commission Decision No 2496/96 ECSC — Export aid for steel undertakings — Observance of a reasonable period — Tax deduction — Obligation to state reasons — Selective nature — General measure)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Case C-501/00: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Articles 4(c) CS and 67 CS - Commission Decision No 2496/96 ECSC - Export aid for steel undertakings - Observance of a reasonable period - Tax deduction - Obligation to state reasons - Selective nature - General measure)
   (2004/C 228/01)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-501/00: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde) supported by Diputación Foral de Alava, Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, Juntas Generales de Guipúzcoa, Gobierno del País Vasco (Lawyer: R. Falcón y Tella) and by Unión de Empresas Siderúrgicas (Unesid) (Lawyers: L. Suárez de Lezo Mantilla and I. Alonso de Noriega Satrústegui) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and G. Valero Jordana) — application for annulment of Commission Decision of 31 October 2000 on Spain's corporation tax laws (OJ 2001 L 60, p. 57) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 July 2004, in which it:

               1)

               Dismisses the action.

               2)

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

               3)

               Orders Diputación Foral de Álava, Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, Juntas Generales de Guipúzcoa, Gobierno del Pais Vasco and Unión de Empresas Siderurgicas to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.


title: Case T-45/12: Order of the General Court of 8 May 2015 — United Kingdom v ECB

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/25

         Order of the General Court of 8 May 2015 — United Kingdom v ECB
   (Case T-45/12) (1)

   (2015/C 228/31)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.


title: Case F-53/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 25 November 2008 — Iordanova v Commission (Staff cases — Recruitment — Open competition — Conditions for admission — Rejection of candidature — Diplomas)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/70

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 25 November 2008 — Iordanova v Commission
   (Case F-53/07) (1)

   (Staff cases - Recruitment - Open competition - Conditions for admission - Rejection of candidature - Diplomas)
   (2009/C 44/121)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ivanka Iordanova (Varna, Bulgaria) (represented by: G. Kerelov, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/14/06 refusing to admit the applicant to the tests in that competition on the ground that her post-secondary education was not in a field relevant to a secretarial post and she did not have three years' professional experience in that field — Claim for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107 of 26.4.2008, p. 44.


title: Case T-255/07: Action brought on 17 July 2007 — Algodonera de Palma v Council and Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/49

         Action brought on 17 July 2007 — Algodonera de Palma v Council and Commission
   (Case T-255/07)
   (2007/C 211/93)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Algodonera de Palma SA (Córdoba, Spain) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare under Article 288 EC that the applicant is entitled to have damage totalling two million two thousand three hundred and forty four euros (EUR 2 002 344) made good by the Council and the Commission jointly and severally;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-217/07 Las Palmeras v Council and Commission.


title: Case T-347/12 P: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014  — Mocová v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Fixed term contract — Decision not to renew — Rejection of the complaint — Obligation to state reasons — Ground given in the decision rejecting the complaint)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014 — Mocová v Commission
   (Case T-347/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Fixed term contract - Decision not to renew - Rejection of the complaint - Obligation to state reasons - Ground given in the decision rejecting the complaint))
   2014/C 212/31
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Dana Mocová (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: D. de Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 in Case F-41/11 Mocová v Commission II-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Ms Dana Mocová to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the course of the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case C-333/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Administrative d'appel de Lyon (France) lodged on 17 July 2007 — Régie Networks v Direction de Contrôle fiscal Rhône-Alpes Bourgogne

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Administrative d'appel de Lyon (France) lodged on 17 July 2007 — Régie Networks v Direction de Contrôle fiscal Rhône-Alpes Bourgogne
   (Case C-333/07)
   (2007/C 211/55)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour Administrative d'appel de Lyon (Administrative Appeal Court, Lyon)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Régie Networks

      Defendant: Direction de Contrôle fiscal Rhône-Alpes Bourgogne
   Question referred
   Is Commission Decision No 679/97 of 10 November 1997 by which the Commission decided not to raise any objections to the alterations made to the system of aid to radio broadcasting introduced by Decree No 92-1053 (1) valid in respect of (1) the statement of reasons, (2) the assessment made as to the compatibility with the EC Treaty of the funding scheme for aid to radio broadcasting which was established for the period 1998-2002 and (3) the ground relating to the lack of any increase in the budgetary resources of the system of aid at issue?

      (1)  Decree No 92-1053 of 30 September 1992 renewing a special tax for the benefit of funds to support radio broadcasting, JORF No 228, of 1 October 1992, and Decree No 97-1263 of 29 December 1997 creating a special tax for the benefit of funds to support radio broadcasting, JORF No 302, of 30 September 1997, p. 191914.


title: Case C-352/01: Action brought on 19 September 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 317/18                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.11.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       Appeal brought on 19 September 2001 by Olli Mattila
                                                                      against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2001 by the
                                                                      Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those            European Communities in case T-204/99 (1) between Olli
submitted in Case C-323/01 (2); the period prescribed for             Mattila and the Council of the European Union and the
transposition expired on 14 March 2000.                                        Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-353/01 P)
(1) OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36.
(2) See page 12 of this Official Journal.
                                                                                (2001/C 317/34)
                                                                      An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2001 by
                                                                      the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                      European Communities in case T-204/99 between Olli Mattila
                                                                      and the Council of the European Union and the Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities, was brought before the Court
Action brought on 19 September 2001 by the Com-                       of Justice of the European Communities on 19 September
mission of the European Communities against the                       2001 by Olli Mattila, residing in Hyvinkää, Finland, represented
                        Kingdom of Spain                              by Z. Sundström and M.R. Kauppi, Lawyers, with an address
                                                                      for service in Luxembourg.
                         (Case C-352/01)
                                                                      The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                         (2001/C 317/33)
                                                                      —     annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                   Chamber) of 12 July 2001;
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 Sep-
tember 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, acting as Agent,         —     annul the decision of the Council and the Commission
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                  which is the subject of the present appeal;
L. Escobar Guerrero, Wagner Centre C 254.
                                                                      —     invite the Council and the Commission to reconsider
                                                                            their position and give access to the Appellant to the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 requested documents;
1.    Declare that by not having adopted the laws, regulations        —     give access, at least partial access, to such documents after
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                cancelling or editing the sections which may justifiably
      Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the               qualify as liable to prejudice the international relations of
      Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of                 the European Community;
      biocidal products on the market (1) or, in any event, not
      having communicated those provisions to the Com-
      mission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its          —     order jointly the Council and the Commission to pay the
      obligations under that directive.                                     costs incurred by the Appellant in these proceedings.
2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      The Appellant contends that the Court of First Instance
                                                                      has incorrectly applied European Community Law, namely
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in          93/731/EC of 20 December 1993(2) on public access to
Case C-323/01 (2); the deadline for transposition expired on          Council documents and 94/90 ECSC, EC, Euratom of 8 Febru-
13 May 2000.                                                          ary 1994 (3) on public access to Commission documents.
(1) OJ L 123 of 24.4.1998, p. 63.                                     The pleas in support of the appeal are the following:
(2) See page 12 of this Official Journal.
                                                                      a.    Manifest error of assessment in interpreting the exception
                                                                            concerning the protection of international relations;


title: Case T-358/07: Action brought on 17 September 2007 — Publicare Marketing v OHIM (Publicare)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/30

         Action brought on 17 September 2007 — Publicare Marketing v OHIM (Publicare)
   (Case T-358/07)
   (2007/C 283/56)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Publicare Marketing Communications GmbH (Frankfurt, Germany) (represented by B. Mohr, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 27 June 2007 in Case R 157/2007-4;

               —

               Order OHIM to have the mark ‘Publicare’, application No 4 733 069, entered in the register.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the verbal mark ‘Publicare’ for services in Classes 35, 38 and 42 (application No 4 733 069).

      Decision of the Examiner: refusal of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-62/10 P: Appeal brought on 10 February 2010 by Brigitte Zangerl-Posselt against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 November 2009 in Case F-83/07 Zangerl-Posselt v Commission

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/49

         Appeal brought on 10 February 2010 by Brigitte Zangerl-Posselt against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 November 2009 in Case F-83/07 Zangerl-Posselt v Commission
   (Case T-62/10 P)
   2010/C 113/80
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Brigitte Zangerl-Posselt (Merzig, Germany) (represented by: S. Paulmann, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the contested judgment;

               —

               give judgment itself and, as claimed by the appellant at first instance, annul the decision of the selection board of Competition EPSO/AST/27/06 of 25 July 2007 not to allow the appellant to be admitted to the practical and oral tests of that competition which was, in the meantime, confirmed by the decision of 13 December 2007 on her complaint;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in connection with both proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 November 2009 in Case F-83/07 Zangerl-Posselt v Commission, rejecting the appellant’s application.
   The appellant bases her appeal on the ground that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law when considering the conditions for admission to Open Competition EPSO/AST/27/06. In that regard, it is alleged inter alia that the Civil Service Tribunal, when deciding whether the appellant possessed a diploma within the meaning of the notice of competition in respect of the competition in question, essentially applied the French version of Article 5(3)(a)(ii) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.
   Further, according to the appellant, the arguments with which the Civil Service Tribunal sought to invalidate the appellant’s submissions are vitiated by a number of errors of law. In that regard, it is submitted inter alia that findings were made whose unlawfulness is apparent from the case-file, and also the clear sense of the evidence submitted was distorted.
   The appellant further claims that the indirect discrimination on grounds of age, of which she complains and which was found to have existed, was held to be justified on grounds which were insufficient and false.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 12 March 1998 in Case C-313/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 94/57/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
C 151/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.5.98
Ioannou, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass,              Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 March 1998, in                 judgment on 12 March 1998, in which it:
which it:
                                                                     1. declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
1. declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed                  period, the laws, regulations and administrative
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                     provisions necessary in order to comply with Council
     provisions to comply with Council Directive 92/74/                  Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common
     EEC of 22 September 1992 widening the scope of                      rules and standards for ship inspection and survey
     Directive 81/851/EEC on the approximation of                        organisations and for the relevant activities of
     provisions laid down by law, regulation or                          maritime administrations, the Italian Republic has
     administrative action relating to veterinary medicinal              failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 thereof;
     products and laying down additional provisions on
     homeopathic veterinary medicinal products, the
     Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations         2. orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     under Article 10(1) thereof;
                                                                     (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
2. orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
                                                                     Action brought on 27 February 1998 by the Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-59/98)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (98/C 151/06)
                       (Fifth Chamber)
                      of 12 March 1998
                                                                     An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
      in Case C-313/97: Commission of the European                   brought before the Court of Justice of the European
             Communities v. Italian Republic (1)                     Communities on 27 February 1998 by the Commission of
                                                                     the European Communities, represented by Giuliano
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                                                                     Marenco, Principal Legal Adviser, and JoseÂ F. Crespo
Directive 94/57/EC Ð Failure to transpose within the
                                                                     Carrillo, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                      prescribed period)
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                        (98/C 151/05)                                Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     Ð declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws,
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
          published in the European Court Reports)                       comply with Commission Directive 94/46/EC of
                                                                         13 October 1994 amending Directive 88/301/EEC and
                                                                         Directive 90/388/EEC in particular with regard to
In Case C-313/97: Commission of the European                             satellite communications (1), the Grand Duchy of
Communities (Agent: L. Pignataro) v. Italian Republic                    Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
(Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by G. Aiello) Ð application                  that directive,
for a declaration that, by failing to adopt and/or
communicate the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary in order to comply with Council                 Ð order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common                         costs.
rules and standards for ship inspection and survey
organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime
administrations (OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 20), the Italian           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
Treaty and under that Directive Ð the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the                  The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de                 paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges; F. G.                Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to


title: Case C-502/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 10 November 2014  — Buzzi Unicem SpA and Others v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003//87/EC and Others

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 10 November 2014 — Buzzi Unicem SpA and Others v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003//87/EC and Others
   (Case C-502/14)
   (2015/C 026/17)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Buzzi Unicem SpA, Colacem SpA, Cogne Acciai Speciali SpA, Olon SpA, Laterlite SpA

      Defendants: Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003//87/EC, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid in so far as it failed to take into account, in the calculation of the allowances to be allocated free of charge, the percentage of emissions associated with waste gas combustion — or steel processing gas — or of emissions associated with the heat produced by cogeneration, thereby infringing Article 290 TFEU and Article 10a(1),(4) and (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) , going beyond the limits of the powers conferred by that directive and at variance with its objectives (to encourage more energy-efficient techniques and to protect the needs of economic development and employment)?

               2.

               Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid, in the light of the Community principles of effectiveness and proportionality underlying Article 5 TEU, owing to undue failure to respect the applicant companies’ legitimate expectation of remaining in possession of the number of the allowances allocated to them on a preliminary basis and to which they are entitled on the basis of Directive 2003/87, thereby depriving those companies of the economic benefit associated with that number of allowances?

               3.

               Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid in so far as it failed to take into account, in the calculation of the allowances to be allocated free of charge, emissions from plants that fell within the scope of the directive only with effect from 2013, in that such plants were included in the Emission Trading Scheme under Directive 2009/29/EC?

               4.

               Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union] owing to its failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons?

               5.

               Is European Commission decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on the ground that it infringes the procedural rules under Articles 10a(1) and 23(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).


title: Joined Cases T-428/10 and T-577/10 and Case T-441/12: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Trenzas y Cables de Acero v Commission (Actions for annulment — Competition — Cartels — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Partial manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/32

      Order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Trenzas y Cables de Acero v Commission
      (Joined Cases T-428/10 and T-577/10 and Case T-441/12) (1)

      (Actions for annulment - Competition - Cartels - European prestressing steel market - Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Partial manifest inadmissibility)
      (2015/C 073/42)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, SL (Santander, Spain) (represented by: in Cases T-428/10 and T-577/10, F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, and, in Case T-441/12, initially F. González Díaz and P. Herrero Prieto, then F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and V. Bottka, and, in Case T-441/12, C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents, and by L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

         Re:

      Applications 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 by the letter COMP/G2/DVE/nvz/79465 from the Commission’s Director-General for Competition of 25 July 2012.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  In Case T-428/10, the form of order seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) is rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

                  2.

                  In Case T-577/10, the action is rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

                  3.

                  The remainder of the pleas in law and forms of order sought is reserved.

                  4.

                  Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, SL is ordered to pay the costs relating to the pleas in law and forms of order directed against Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) made in Case T-428/10 and the costs in Case T-577/10.

         (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case C-452/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Fidium Finanz AG v Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (Freedom to provide services — Free movement of capital — Companies established in non-member countries — Activity entirely or principally directed towards the territory of a Member State — Grant of credit on a commercial basis — Requirement of prior authorisation in the Member State in which the service is provided)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Fidium Finanz AG v Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht
   (Case C-452/04) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - Companies established in non-member countries - Activity entirely or principally directed towards the territory of a Member State - Grant of credit on a commercial basis - Requirement of prior authorisation in the Member State in which the service is provided)
   (2006/C 294/15)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fidium Finanz AG

      Defendant: Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Interpretation of Arts 49, 56 and 58 EC — Undertaking established in a non-member country whose activities, consisting in the granting of loans, are directed entirely or principally at the territory of a Member State — Requirement of prior authorisation in the Member State in which the service is provided
   Operative part of the judgment
   National rules whereby a Member State makes the granting of credit on a commercial basis, on national territory, by a company established in a non-member country subject to prior authorisation, and which provide that such authorisation must be refused, in particular, if that company does not have its central administration or a branch in that territory, affect primarily the exercise of the freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 49 EC et seq. A company established in a non-member country cannot rely on those provisions.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 08.01.2005.


title: Case C-210/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Daniela Tomassi

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Daniela Tomassi
   (Case C-210/14)
   2014/C 292/13
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Party to the main proceedings

   Daniela Tomassi

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?

               2.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?

               3.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?


title: Joined Cases T-429/10 and T-578/10 and Case T-438/12: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Global Steel Wire v Commission (Actions for annulment — Competition — Cartels — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Partial manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/33

      Order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Global Steel Wire v Commission
      (Joined Cases T-429/10 and T-578/10 and Case T-438/12) (1)

      (Actions for annulment - Competition - Cartels - European prestressing steel market - Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Partial manifest inadmissibility)
      (2015/C 073/43)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Global Steel Wire, SA (Cerdanyola del Vallés, Spain) (represented by: in Cases T-429/10 and T-578/10, F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, and, in Case T-438/12, initially F. González Díaz and P. Herrero Prieto, then F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and V. Bottka, and, in Case T-438/12, C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents, and by L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

         Re:

      Applications 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 by the letter COMP/G2/DVE/nvz/79465 from the Commission’s Director-General for Competition of 25 July 2012.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  In Case T-429/10, the form of order seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) is rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

                  2.

                  In Case T-578/10, the action is rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

                  3.

                  The remainder of the pleas in law and forms of order sought is reserved.

                  4.

                  Global Steel Wire, SA is ordered to pay the costs relating to the pleas in law and forms of order directed against Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) made in Case T-429/10 and the costs in Case T-578/10.

         (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case T-751/14: Action brought on 7 November 2014 — Hikari Miso v OHIM — Nishimoto Trading (Hikari)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/44

         Action brought on 7 November 2014 — Hikari Miso v OHIM — Nishimoto Trading (Hikari)
   (Case T-751/14)
   (2015/C 007/50)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hikari Miso Co. Ltd (Suwa-gun, Japan) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nishimoto Trading Co. Ltd (Santa Fe Springs, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Application for registration No 9 5 69  501

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 in Case R 2394/2013-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul and/or set aside the contested decision;

               —

               award the costs in favour of the Applicant and reverse the costs award made by the Fourth Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               The decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal is based upon errors of law and/or fact;

               —

               The Fourth Board of Appeal exceeded its powers and function, by indulging in accepting as proven facts submissions which amounted to no more than suppositions and hypothesis, in respect of which no evidence had been adduced.


title: Action brought on 22 May 1996 by Garage Massol SARL against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-77/96)

text:
20 . 7 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 210/23
Action brought on 22 May 1996 by Garage Massol SARL                  The applicant contends, in particular, that, according to
  against the Commission of the European Communities                 settled case-law, the Commission is obliged to investigate
                        ( Case T-77/96 )                             every complaint referred to it and that, contrary to that
                                                                     case-law, it has failed either to respond to the formal notice
                          ( 96/C 210/52 )                            served by the applicant or to investigate its complaint.
                                                                     Furthermore, it has refused to communicate details of the
                 (Language of the case: French)                      inquiry carried out into the affairs of Automobiles Peugeot
                                                                     and/or PSA, thereby negating results obtained at the expense
                                                                     of European taxpayers and robbing the principle of
An action against the Commission of the European                     subsidiarity of all practical effect.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 22 May 1996 by               In a different connection, the applicant contends that to
Garage Massol SARL, established at Frejairolles ( France ),          refuse to undertake an analysis of the agreement and of the
represented by Jean Louis Portolano, of the                          contractual practices engaged in by Peugeot, on the pretext
Aix-en-Provence Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     that the Commission was already examining a similar case
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Roy Nathan, of Nathan &                in the course of its inquiries , amounts to an infringement of
Noesen, 18 rue des Glacis .
                                                                     Article 155 of the Treaty, which confers on the Commission
                                                                     responsibility for ensuring compliance with the Treaty
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         provisions . Such a refusal to investigate the complaint is all
                                                                     the more irregular since the Commission enjoys sole power,
— declare that the Commission has failed to act in relation          under Council Regulation No 17, to determine breaches of
     to complaints lodged by Massol SARL,                            the competition rules and has exclusive competence to
                                                                     define which individual matters or categories are to be
— annual the decision implicitly rejecting the complaints            exempt pursuant to Article 85 ( 3 ) of the Treaty .
     and the decision refusing to communicate the replies of
     Automobiles Peugeot and/or PSA,                                 In addition, the Commission's refusal to communicate its
                                                                     correspondence with Automobiles Peugeot and/or the PSA
— find that the Commission has incurred non-contractual
                                                                     group must be regarded as contrary to the right to a fair
                                                                     hearing, the principle of audi alteram partem and the
     liability and order it to make good the damage suffered         established right of an applicant to seek judicial review of
     by Massol SARL in the annual sum of up to ECU                   express decisions of the Commission .
     180 000 from 25 May 1994,
— order the Commission to pay the costs, including a
     contribution of up to FF 100 000 in respect of lawyers '
     fees .
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Removal from the register of Case T-109/95 ( )
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/53 )
The applicant, a garage marketing Peugeot vehicles in
France outside the network of concessionaires within the                            (Language of the case: English)
PSA group, objects to the Commission's failure to act on the
complaint lodged by it against the system set up by that
group . On the basis of that dealership system, the accredited       By order of 23 April 1996 , the President of the Fourth
concessionaires are opposing, collectively and in concert,           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
the activities of resellers who are not accredited by the            Communities ordered the removal from the register of
manufacturer, contending that the activities of independent          Case T-109/95 : X v . Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities .
resellers are illegal under Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85 .
Concurrently, and with a view to reserving to themselves the
business of supplying and reselling new Peugeot vehicles,            (') OJ No C 174 , 8 . 7 . 199 5 .
PSA and the distributors within its network have claimed
that their dealership agreements are legal, on the ground
that, according to them, those agreements fulfil the various
exemption criteria laid down by that Regulation .
The reason given for the Commission's refusal to investigate
the complaint was that it was not for the Commission to                    Removal from the register of Case T-157/95 ( )
assume the role assigned to the national courts, before                                        ( 96/C 210/54 )
which proceedings between the applicant and several
dealers are already pending, and that the complaint in
question did not touch on issues of Community interest,
                                                                                (Language of tbe case: Englisb)
since the Commission was already investigating a particular
case calling in question the conditions or practices alluded to       By order of 25 April 1996 , the President of the First
 by it.                                                               Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First


title: Case T-174/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — Elf Aquitaine v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Monochloroacetic acid market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Market sharing and price fixing — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Imputability of the infringement — Principle that penalties must fit the offence — Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis — Presumption of innocence — Principle of sound administration — Principle of legal certainty — Misuse of powers — Fines)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/36

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — Elf Aquitaine v Commission
   (Case T-174/05) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Monochloroacetic acid market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Market sharing and price fixing - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Imputability of the infringement - Principle that penalties must fit the offence - Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis - Presumption of innocence - Principle of sound administration - Principle of legal certainty - Misuse of powers - Fines)
   2009/C 282/66
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Elf Aquitaine SA (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery and É. Friedel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially A. Bouquet and F. Amato and subsequently by A. Bouquet and X. Lewis, Agents)

      Re:

   Principally, annulment of Articles 1(d), 2(c), 3 and 4(9) of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/ E-1/37.773 — MCAA) or, in the alternative, application for annulment of Article 2(c) of that decision, or, in the further alternative, application for variation of the said Article 2(c)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Elf Aquitaine SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, of 9.7.2005.


title: Case C-91/00: Action brought on 8 March 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
C 176/6                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                         24.6.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Action brought on 13 March 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the French Republic
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC is such
                                                                                (Case C-97/00)
as to oblige Member States to which directives are addressed
to adopt the measures necessary in order to transpose those
directives into their national legal order within the time-limit                                 (2000/C 176/11)
prescribed therein. The time-limit fixed in the present case
expired on 4 December 1998 but the Kingdom of the Nether-
lands has not adopted the necessary measures.                          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                       Court of Justice on 13 March 2000 by the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, of its
(1) OJ 1997 L 333, p. 1.
                                                                       Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
                                                                       Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 8 March 2000 by the Commission of                    — declare that, by failing to communicate the laws, regu-
the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                         lations and administrative measures necessary in order to
                             Netherlands                                    comply fully with the provisions of European Parliament
                                                                            and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 (1)
                           (Case C-91/00)                                   amending Directives 92/50/EEC (2), 93/36/EEC (3) and
                                                                            93/37/EEC (4), alternatively, by failing to take the necessary
                                                                            measures to comply therewith, the French Republic has
                          (2000/C 176/10)                                   failed to comply with its obligations under that directive;
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was                   — order the French Republic to pay the costs.
brought before the Court of Justice on 8 March 2000 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
H.M.H. Speyart, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                       advanced in Case C-90/00 (5); the period prescribed by Article
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and          4(1) of the directive expired on 13 October 1998, yet the only
     administrative provisions necessary in order to comply            provisions of Directive 97/52/EC which have been transposed
     with Commission Directive 98/77/EC (1) of 2 October               into the French legal order are those contained in Articles
     1998 adapting to technical progress Council Directive             1(1)(a), 2(1)(a) and 3(1)(a), relating to the thresholds above
     70/220/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the                which notices of contracts must be published in the Official
     Member States relating to measures to be taken against air        Journal of the European Communities.
     pollution by emissions from motor vehicles, the Kingdom
     of the Netherlands has failed to comply with its obligations
     under that directive;
                                                                       (1) concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public
— order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.                   service contracts, public supply contracts and public works
                                                                           contracts respectively (OJ L 328 of 28.11.1997, p. 1).
                                                                       (2) Council Directive of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ L 209 of
                                                                           24.7.1992, p. 1).
                                                                       (3) Council Directive of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those                 the award of public supply contracts (OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 1).
in Case C-90/00 (2); the time-limit for transposition expired on       (4) Council Directive of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination
31 December 1998.                                                          of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ L 199
                                                                           of 9.8.1993, p. 54).
                                                                        5
                                                                       ( ) See page 5 of this Official Journal.
(1) OJ 1998 L 286, p. 34.
(2) See page 5 of this Official Journal.


title: Case F-136/15: Action brought on 29 October 2015 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/38

         Action brought on 29 October 2015 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-136/15)
   (2016/C 007/51)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment, firstly, of the Parliament’s decision to put the applicant’s situation into order as regards the allocation of the education allowance and, secondly, of the decision to recover the amounts which the applicant unduly received in that regard.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decisions and, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the claim;

               —

               Order the Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case F-44/16: Action brought on 19 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/31

         Action brought on 19 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-44/16)
   (2016/C 371/35)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision of the jury for competition EPSO/AST-SC/01/14 not to include the applicant on the reserve list for that competition by the fact that she does not fulfill the conditions relating to the diploma and professional experience which are required to be included on it.

      Forms of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Head of Unit of EPSO’s Selection Committee of 18 February 2015 informing her that her application for the role of secretary (No EPSO/ASTSC/01/14) was rejected because of the fact that the applicant was not in possession of the diploma and professional experience giving her access to the competition concerned;

               —

               annul the decision of the Head of Unit of EPSO’s Selection Committee of 17 September 2015 informing her of the rejection of her application for review and confirming the decision of 18 February 2015;

               —

               annul, as far as necessary, the specific reply rejecting the complaint of 12 May 2016;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-138/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 October 2007 — Commission v Impetus (Arbitration clause — Framework programmes for activities in the field of research and technological development — Contracts concerning projects in the field of telematics applications of common interest — Lack of supporting documentation and failure of part of the declared expenditure to comply with the contractual provisions — Repayment of the sums paid)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/40

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 October 2007 — Commission v Impetus
   (Case T-138/05) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Framework programmes for activities in the field of research and technological development - Contracts concerning projects in the field of telematics applications of common interest - Lack of supporting documentation and failure of part of the declared expenditure to comply with the contractual provisions - Repayment of the sums paid)
   (2007/C 297/81)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent, assisted by N. Kostikas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Impetus Simvouli Mikhanikoi — Kainotomia kai Tekhnologia EPE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Miliarakis, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application, pursuant to an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 238 EC, for an order against Impetus Simvouloi Mikhanikoi — Kainotomia kai Tekhnologia EPE to repay part of the sums paid to it by the European Community under the Invite (Inland Navigation Telematics) contract (reference COP 493) and under the Ausias (ATT in Urban Sites with Integration and Standardisation) contract (reference TR 1006), concluded in the framework of Decision No 1110/94 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 April 1994 concerning the fourth framework programme of the European Community activities in the field of research and technological development and demonstration (OJ 1994 L 126, p. 1), and part of the sums paid under the Artis (Advanced Road Transport Informatics in Spain) contract (reference V 2043), concluded in the framework of Council Decision 90/221/Euratom, EEC of 23 April 1990 concerning the framework programme of Community activities in the field of research and technological development (1990 to 1994) (OJ 1990 L 117, p. 28).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the Commission's claim for repayment of the sum of EUR 136 037,30 under the Invite (Inland Navigation Telematics) contract (reference COP 493);

               2.

               Orders Impetus Simvouloi Mikhanikoi — Kainotomia kai Tekhnologia EPE, under the Ausias (ATT in Urban Sites with Integration and Standardisation) contract (reference TR 1006), to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 14 678,41 by way of principal sum, together with interest for late payment, at the statutory annual rate applicable in Spain, from 15 November 2002 until payment in full of the debt;

               3.

               Orders Impetus Simvouloi Mikhanikoi — Kainotomia kai Tekhnologia EPE, under the Artis (Advanced Road Transport Informatics in Spain) contract (reference V 2043), to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 9 230,77 by way of principal sum, together with interest for late payment, at the statutory annual rate applicable in Spain, from 29 January 2003 until payment in full of the debt.

               4.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.


title: Case C-123/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — A Oy (Freedom of establishment — Article 49 TFEU — Tax legislation — Merger of a parent company established in one Member State with a subsidiary established in another Member State — Deductibility by the parent company of the subsidiary’s losses arising from its activity — Exclusion for non-resident subsidiaries)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — A Oy
   (Case C-123/11) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Tax legislation - Merger of a parent company established in one Member State with a subsidiary established in another Member State - Deductibility by the parent company of the subsidiary’s losses arising from its activity - Exclusion for non-resident subsidiaries)
   2013/C 114/10
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A Oy

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — National tax legislation — Merger with a parent company established in one Member State of a subsidiary having ceased activity in another Member State — Deductibility by the absorbing company, in the Member State in which it is established, of the consolidated losses of the absorbed company resulting from that company’s activity in the other Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU do not, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, preclude national legislation under which a parent company merging with a subsidiary established in another Member State, which has ceased activity, cannot deduct from its taxable income the losses incurred by that subsidiary in respect of the tax years prior to the merger, while that national legislation allows such a possibility when the merger is with a resident subsidiary. Such national legislation is none the less incompatible with European Union law if it does not allow the parent company the possibility of showing that its non-resident subsidiary has exhausted the possibilities of taking those losses into account and that there is no possibility of their being taken into account in its State of residence in respect of future tax years either by itself or by a third party;

               2.

               The rules for calculating the non-resident subsidiary’s losses for the purpose of their being taken over by the resident parent company, in an operation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, must not constitute unequal treatment compared with the rules of calculation which would be applicable if the merger were with a resident subsidiary.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: Case T-503/13 P: Order of the General Court of 19 June 2014  — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Article 14 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal — Principle of the lawful judge — Dismissal of the action at first instance as manifestly inadmissible — Application filed by facsimile bearing a non-handwritten signature of the lawyer — Application filed by facsimile and original filed later not identical — Action brought out of time — Application seeking payment of a certain sum for a quarter of the costs incurred in the proceedings in Case F-56/09 — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/62

         Order of the General Court of 19 June 2014 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-503/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Article 14 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal - Principle of the lawful judge - Dismissal of the action at first instance as manifestly inadmissible - Application filed by facsimile bearing a non-handwritten signature of the lawyer - Application filed by facsimile and original filed later not identical - Action brought out of time - Application seeking payment of a certain sum for a quarter of the costs incurred in the proceedings in Case F-56/09 - Appeal manifestly unfounded))
   2014/C 315/103
   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)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 12 July 2013 in Case F-32/12 Marcuccio v Commission, not yet published, seeking the setting aside of that order.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission at the present instance.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013


title: Case C-12/09: Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/21

         Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-12/09)
   (2009/C 55/35)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga and S. Mortoni, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Commission Directive 2006/17/EC (1) of 8 February 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/17/EC or, in any event, by not communicating those measures to the Commission.

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of Directive 2006/17/EC expired on 1 November 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 38, p. 40.


title: Case T-259/14: Order of the General Court of 12 January 2015 — Luxembourg v Commission

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/50

      Order of the General Court of 12 January 2015 — Luxembourg v Commission
      (Case T-259/14) (1)

      (2015/C 073/62)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Joined Cases C-503/13 and C-504/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH v AOK Sachsen-Anhalt (C-503/13), Betriebskrankenkasse RWE (C-504/13) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Liability for damage caused by defective products — Directive 85/374/EEC — Articles 1, 6(1) and section (a) of the first paragraph of Article 9 — Pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators — Risk of product failure — Personal injury — Removal of the allegedly defective product and replacement with another product — Reimbursement of the costs of the operation)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH v AOK Sachsen-Anhalt (C-503/13), Betriebskrankenkasse RWE (C-504/13)
   (Joined Cases C-503/13 and C-504/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Liability for damage caused by defective products - Directive 85/374/EEC - Articles 1, 6(1) and section (a) of the first paragraph of Article 9 - Pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators - Risk of product failure - Personal injury - Removal of the allegedly defective product and replacement with another product - Reimbursement of the costs of the operation))
   (2015/C 138/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH

      Defendants: AOK Sachsen-Anhalt (C-503/13), Betriebskrankenkasse RWE (C-504/13)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 6(1) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products must be interpreted as meaning that, where it is found that products belonging to the same group or forming part of the same production series, such as pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators, have a potential defect, such a product may be classified as defective without there being any need to establish that that product has such a defect.

               2)

               Article 1 and section (a) of the first paragraph of Article 9 of Directive 85/374 are to be interpreted as meaning that the damage caused by a surgical operation for the replacement of a defective product, such as a pacemaker or an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, constitutes ‘damage caused by death or personal injuries’ for which the producer is liable, if such an operation is necessary to overcome the defect in the product in question. It is for the national court to verify whether that condition is satisfied in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.


title: Case F-68/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 January 2012 — Schreiber v Commission

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/40

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 January 2012 — Schreiber v Commission
   (Case F-68/11) (1)

   2012/C 138/106
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011, p. 52.


title: Case C-37/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 February 2015  — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — ‘Contingency plans’  — Fruit and vegetable sector — Unlawful aid incompatible with the internal market — Recovery — Failure to act)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/10

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-37/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - ‘Contingency plans’ - Fruit and vegetable sector - Unlawful aid incompatible with the internal market - Recovery - Failure to act))
   (2015/C 118/13)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: J. Bousin, G. de Bergues and D. Colas, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by having failed to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries of the State aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market in Article 1 of Commission Decision 2009/402/EC of 28 January 2009 on the contingency plans in the fruit and vegetable sector implemented by France (C 29/05 (ex NN 57/05)) and by having failed to provide the European Commission, within the period prescribed, with the information listed in Article 4 of that decision, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 2 to 4 of that decision;

               2)

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Case T-637/15: Action brought on 16 November 2015 — Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine v OHIM — Miguel Torres (SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/70

         Action brought on 16 November 2015 — Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine v OHIM — Miguel Torres (SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE)
   (Case T-637/15)
   (2016/C 027/89)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine LLLP (Coral Gables, United States of America) (represented by: F. Terrano, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedès, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE’ — Application for registration No 9 784 539

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2015 in Case R 356/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(5), 64(1) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-63/13: Action brought on 5 February 2013 — Three-N-Products Private v OHIM — Munindra Holding (AYUR)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/24

         Action brought on 5 February 2013 — Three-N-Products Private v OHIM — Munindra Holding (AYUR)
   (Case T-63/13)
   2013/C 101/52
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Three-N-Products Private Ltd (New Delhi, India) (represented by: M. Thewes and T. Chevrier, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Munindra Holding BV (Lelystad, Netherlands)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision R 2296/2011-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 November 2012;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the contested decision as regards the ‘consultancy services in the field of herbal remedies, nutrition, health and beauty care’, in Class 44;

               —

               order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘AYUR’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 16 and 44 — Community trade mark No 5 429 469

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Munindra Holding BV

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Registered Benelux word mark ‘AYUS’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 29, 30 and 31

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) and of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-342/15: Action brought on 27 June 2015 — Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen v OHIM (Shape of a service station)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/48

         Action brought on 27 June 2015 — Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen v OHIM (Shape of a service station)
   (Case T-342/15)
   (2015/C 279/60)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA (Płock, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional Community trade mark (Shape of a service station) — Application No 12 416 905

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2015 in Case R 2249/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

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

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), Article 7(2) and Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-59/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Catanzaro (Italy) lodged on 9 February 2015 — Esse Di Emme Costruzioni Srl v Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Calabria, Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/35

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Catanzaro (Italy) lodged on 9 February 2015 — Esse Di Emme Costruzioni Srl v Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Calabria, Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze
   (Case C-59/15)
   (2015/C 138/47)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Catanzaro

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Esse Di Emme Costruzioni Srl

      Defendants: Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Calabria, Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

      Question referred

   Is it contrary to the principle laid down by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, made applicable to the sphere of procurement contracts by Article 1 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1), that everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal, for a provision of national law, such as that set out in Articles 9, 13 and 14 of Decree of the President of the Republic No 115 of 30 May 2002, applicable to the circumstances of the case, to provide, for access to administrative court proceedings relating to procedures for the award of public contracts, for payment of a greater amount of a standard fee than that fixed for access to administrative court proceedings in other spheres?

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


title: Case T-633/11: Action brought on 8 December 2011 — Guangdong Kito Ceramics and Others v Council

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/40

         Action brought on 8 December 2011 — Guangdong Kito Ceramics and Others v Council
   (Case T-633/11)
   2012/C 32/79
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Guangdong Kito Ceramics Co. Ltd (Foshan, China), Jingdezhen Kito Ceramic Co. Ltd (Jingdezhen, China), Jingdezhen Lehua Ceramic Sanitary Ware Co. Ltd (Jingdezhen, China) and Zhaoqing Lehua Ceramic Sanitary Ware Co. Ltd (Sihui, China) (represented by: M. Sánchez Rydelski, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicants; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has committed a manifest error in the interpretation and application of Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation is lacking sufficient reasoning.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the procedure leading up to the contested regulation was not in compliance with general principles of EU law, such as the principle of sound administration, transparency and with the right of defence of the applicants and infringed upon Article 18(4) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).


title: Case C-584/12 P: Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2014  — El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Emilio Pucci International BV

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/45

         Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2014 — El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Emilio Pucci International BV
   (Case C-584/12 P) (1)

   2014/C 315/73
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Case T-404/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Junited Autoglas Deutschland v OHIM — United Vehicles (UNITED VEHICLEs) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark UNITED VEHICLEs — Earlier Community word mark Junited — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/47

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Junited Autoglas Deutschland v OHIM — United Vehicles (UNITED VEHICLEs)
   (Case T-404/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark UNITED VEHICLEs - Earlier Community word mark Junited - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 027/58)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: United Vehicles GmbH (Munich, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 April 2014 (Case R 859/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and United Vehicles GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.


title: Case C-90/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 May 2014  — 1. garantovaná a.s. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Total turnover in the preceding business year)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 May 2014 — 1. garantovaná a.s. v European Commission
   (Case C-90/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Total turnover in the preceding business year))
   2014/C 212/08
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: 1. garantovaná a.s. (represented by: K. Lasok QC, J. Holmes and B. Hartnett, Barristers, O. Geiss, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Vecchi and N. Khan, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 in Case T-392/09 1. garantovaná v Commission by which the General Court dismissed an action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel industry), concerning a cartel on the markets for calcium carbide powder, calcium carbide granulates and magnesium granulates in a substantial part of the EEA, involving price fixing, market sharing and exchange of information, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant — Calculation of the fine — Upper limit of 10 % of turnover — Relevant turnover

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders 1. garantovaná a.s. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.


title: Case T-135/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  14 December 2005  — Greencore Group plc v Commission of the European Communities (Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant — Failure then refusal of the Commission to pay interest on the sum refunded — Action for annulment — Principle of legal certainty)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 — Greencore Group plc v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-135/02) (1)

   (Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance - Reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant - Failure then refusal of the Commission to pay interest on the sum refunded - Action for annulment - Principle of legal certainty)
   (2006/C 48/50)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Greencore Group plc (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. Böhlke, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially K. Wiedner, subsequently by P. Oliver and A. Nijenhuis, and finally by A. Nijenhuis and M. Wilderspin, acting as Agents)
   Application for
   annulment of the decision of 11 February 2002 by which the Commission refused to grant the applicant's request for default interest to be paid to its subsidiary Irish Sugar plc on the principal sum repaid to the latter to comply with a judgment of the Court of First Instance
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of 11 February 2002, by which the Commission refused to grant the applicant's request for default interest to be paid to its subsidiary Irish Sugar plc on the principal sum repaid to the latter to comply with a judgment of the Court of First Instance;

               2)

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice.

      (1)  OJ C 169 of 13. 07. 2002.


title: Case T-12/16: Action brought on 15 January 2016 — Slovenia v Commission

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/54

         Action brought on 15 January 2016 — Slovenia v Commission
   (Case T-12/16)
   (2016/C 098/69)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: L. Bembič, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2015) 7716) (OJ 2015 L 303, p. 35), in so far as it concerns the Republic of Slovenia, and particularly in so far as it relates to
               the lack of a control procedure (or surveillance procedure) regarding land parcels created artificially, in relation to which a correction of the decoupled direct aids at issue was made amounting to EUR 42 615,90for the 2013 accounting year (claim year 2012), EUR 45 519,08for the 2014 accounting year (claim year 2013), and EUR 34 211,94for the 2015 accounting year (claim year 2014);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law regarding the checks on the land parcels, namely: a manifest error of assessment; an inadequate statement of reasons for the decision; and infringement of the principle of legality.
   In the applicant’s opinion, the Commission incorrectly held that there is not yet an adequate system in Slovenia for checking the smallest eligible areas. In that regard, the applicant observes that the small land parcels in Slovenia are a consequence of the natural features and historical fragmentation of its agricultural structures. Furthermore, those areas were not created artificially in order to meet the requirements for obtaining aid from the support scheme. Lastly, during its examination, the Commission did not establish or prove any breach, since the areas in question meet all the requirements necessary to be defined as agricultural areas and land parcels.


title: Case T-586/15: Action brought on 8 October 2015 — Nara tekstil sanayi ve ticaret v OHIM — NBC Fourth Realty (NaraMaxx)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/42

         Action brought on 8 October 2015 — Nara tekstil sanayi ve ticaret v OHIM — NBC Fourth Realty (NaraMaxx)
   (Case T-586/15)
   (2015/C 406/43)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nara Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi (Osmangazi-Bursa, Turkey) (represented by: M. López Camba, L. Monzón de la Flor, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: NBC Fourth Realty Corp. (North Las Vegas, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘NaraMaxx’ — Application for registration No 11 142 461.

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 July 2015 in Case R 1073/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision, to the extent that it maintains the upholding of opposition B 2122938;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Nara Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi;

               —

               order NBC Fourth Realty Corp. to pay the costs incurred by Nara Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi.

      Plea in law

               —

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