title: Case C-357/14 P: Appeal brought on 21 July 2014 by Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2014 in Case T-179/09: Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt v European Commission

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/8

         Appeal brought on 21 July 2014 by Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2014 in Case T-179/09: Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt v European Commission
   (Case C-357/14 P)
   2014/C 329/10
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt (represented by: J. Philippe, F.-H. Boret, A.-C. Guyon, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               quash the judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2014 in Case T-179/09, in so far as it confirms the Commission Decision 2009/609/EC of 4 June 2008 on State aid C 41/2005 awarded by Hungary through Power Purchase Agreements (1) which declared the PPA as illegal and incompatible State aid;

               —

               give final judgment and annul the Commission Decision 2009/609/EC of 4 June 2008 on State aid C 41/2005 awarded by Hungary through Power Purchase Agreements in so far as it found that the PPA was illegal and incompatible State aid, or, in the alternative, to refer the case back to the General Court; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant relies on five pleas in law. In the judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed the application brought by the Appellant for, in essence, the annulment of Commission Decision 2009/609/EC of 4 June 2008 on the State aid C 41/05 awarded by Hungary through Power Purchase Agreements and, in the alternative, the annulment of Articles 2 and 5 of that decision.
   By its first plea, the Appellant respectfully contests the General Court’s assessment in concluding that the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) could be classified as new aid without determining beforehand whether the PPA constituted State aid at all within Article 107(1) TFEU.
   By its second plea, the Appellant respectfully contests the General Court’s conclusion that the Commission had not erred in finding that the time of Hungary’s accession to the EU was the appropriate reference period for characterising a measure as State aid in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU. The General Court errs in law in considering that Annex IV established a rule whereby the relevant period to assess whether a State measure constituted State aid was the time of Hungary’s accession. The meaning of Article IV was distorted since it neither provides nor suggests that the analysis of whether a measure constitutes State aid should be conducted at the date of accession.
   By its third plea, the Appellant respectfully notes that the General Court commits errors of law in considering that an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) had been conferred, without taking into account the elements prevailing at the time of the conclusion of the PPA. The General Court errs in concluding that an advantage had been conferred when i) Magyar Villamos Művek (MVM) had acted as a private investor in concluding the PPA as a preparatory measure to facilitate the privatisation of Dunamenti, and (ii) in any event, even if the PPA had conveyed any advantage (which the Appellant rejects), this was repaid through the sale of Dunamenti.
   By its fourth plea, the Appellant respectfully contests the General Court’s assessment of the risk stemming from MVM’s binding minimum off-take obligation. The General Court errs in law in deducing the existence of an advantage from MVM’s binding minimum off-take obligation without proving the existence of a structural risk.
   By its fifth plea, the Appellant respectfully contests the General Court’s confirmation of the methodology adopted by the Commission for the calculation of the quantum of the aid. The General Court commits an error in law in upholding the methodology prescribed in that it defined the amounts to be recovered as a difference in revenue and not as a difference in profits since this difference could lead to challenge the mere existence of a State aid.

      (1)  OJ L 225, p. 53.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 September 2004 in Case T-254/03: José Manuel Lòpez Cejudo v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Allowance for living conditions — Accommodation — Articles 5 and 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations)

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/17

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 September 2004
   in Case T-254/03: José Manuel Lòpez Cejudo v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Allowance for living conditions - Accommodation - Articles 5 and 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations)
   (2004/C 284/35)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-254/03: José Manuel López Cejudo, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, resident in Brasilia (Brasil), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision of 12 June 2002 concerning the provision of the applicant with accommodation and of the decision of the Appointing Authority contained in the applicant's salary statement for July 2002 concerning the allowance for living conditions, together with a claim for default interest and a claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage — the Court of First Instance (single Judge: A.W.H. Meij); I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 2004 in Case C-284/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles): Etat belge v Temco Europe SA (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(b) — Exempt transactions — Letting of immovable property — Licence to occupy)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 18 November 2004
   in Case C-284/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles): Etat belge v Temco Europe SA (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13B(b) - Exempt transactions - Letting of immovable property - Licence to occupy)
   (2005/C 6/24)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-284/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Brussels Court of Appeal) (Belgium), by decision of 19 June 2003, received at the Court on 2 July 2003, in the proceedings between Etat belge and Temco Europe SA — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 November 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Article 13B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) must be interpreted as meaning that transactions by which one company, through a number of contracts, simultaneously grants associated companies a licence to occupy a single property in return for a payment set essentially on the basis of the area occupied and by which the contracts, as performed, have as their essential object the making available, in a passive manner, of premises or parts of buildings in return for a payment linked to the passage of time, are transactions comprising the ‘letting of immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision and not the provision of a service capable of being categorised in a different way.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.


title: Case T-812/14: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid granted by the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of the financial institution Banco Espírito Santo — Creation and capitalisation of a Bridge Bank — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/32

         Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission
   (Case T-812/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - State aid - Aid granted by the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of the financial institution Banco Espírito Santo - Creation and capitalisation of a Bridge Bank - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 293/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: BPC Lux 2 Sàrl (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) and 19 other applicants whose names are set out in the Annex to the order (represented by: P. Fajardo, lawyer, J. Webber and M. Steenson, Solicitors, and K. Bacon QC)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by L. Inez Fernandes and S. Jaulino, acting as Agents, and by M. Mendes Pereira, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 5682 final of 3 August 2014 on State aid SA.39250 (2014/N) — Portugal — Resolution of Banco Espírito Santo.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               BPC Lux 2 Sàrl and the other parties whose names are set out in the Annex to this order shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief.

               3.

               The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.


title: Case C-456/07: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — Karol Mihal v Daňový úrad Košice V (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Sixth VAT Directive — Taxable persons — Article 4(5), first subparagraph — Bodies governed by public law — Bailiffs — Natural and legal persons)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/17

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — Karol Mihal v Daňový úrad Košice V
   (Case C-456/07) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Sixth VAT Directive - Taxable persons - Article 4(5), first subparagraph - Bodies governed by public law - Bailiffs - Natural and legal persons)
   (2008/C 209/24)
   Language of the case: Slovak
   Referring court
   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky
   Parties

      Applicant: Karol Mihal

      Defendant: Daňový úrad Košice V
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Interpretation of the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Treatment of a body governed by public law as a non-taxable person in respect of activities or operations engaged in as a public authority — Inclusion of bailiffs in the exercise of their public duties — Direct effect
   Operative part of the order
   An activity exercised by a private individual, such as that of a bailiff, is not exempted from value added tax merely because it consists in engaging in acts falling within the rights and powers of a public authority. Even on the assumption that, in the exercise of his duties, a bailiff does carry out such acts, he does not, under legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, exercise his activity in the form of a body governed by public law, not being integrated into the organisation of the public administration, but in the form of an independent economic activity carried out in a self-employed capacity, and, consequently, he is not covered by the exemption provided for in the first subparagraph of Article (5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007.


title: Action brought on 24 January 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-21/96)

text:
4 . 5 . 96             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 133/ 11
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
                        ( Sixth Chamber )                             Tributaria di Primo Grado di Reggio Emilia by order of that
                                                                      court of 15 June 1995 in the case of Max Mara Fashion
                        of 7 March 1996                               Group SRL against Ufficio del Registro di Reggio Emilia
in Case C-360/93 : European Parliament v. Council of the                                        Case C-307/95 )
                       European Union (')                                                        ( 96/C 133/22 )
(Common commercial policy — Services — Government
                           procurement)                               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                           ( 96/C 133/21 )                            European Communities by order of the Commissione
                                                                      Tributaria di Primo Grado (Tax Court of First Instance ),
                                                                      Reggio Emilia of 15 June 1995 , which was received at the
                  (Language of the case: French)                      Court Registry on 27 September 1995 , for a preliminary
                                                                      ruling in the case of Max Mara Fashion Group SRL against
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          Ufficio del Registro di Reggio Emilia . The Commissione
           published in the European Court Reports)                   Tributaria made a reference for a preliminary ruling under
                                                                      Article 177 of the EC Treaty on the interpretation of
                                                                      Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
In Case C-360/93 : European Parliament ( Agents : Johann              indirect taxes on the raising of capital ( OJ, English Special
Schoo and José Luis Rufas Quintana ) v . Council of the               Edition 1969 ( II ), p . 412 ), as amended by Council Directive
European Union ( Agents : Ramon Torrent and Amadeu                    85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 ( OJ No L 156 , 1985 , p . 23 ).
Lopes Sabino ), supported by Commission of the European               The Court made an order on 21 December 1995 , the
Communities ( Agents : Jorn Sack and Patrick Hetsch ) and by          operative part of which is as follows :
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
( Agent: John E. Collins ) — Application for the annulment of         The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by
Council Decision 93/323/EEC of 10 May 1993 concerning                 Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado , Reggio Emilia, by
the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of a                       an order of 15 June 1995 is inadmissible.
Memorandum of Understanding between the European
Economic Community and the United States of America on
government procurement ( OJ No L 125 , 1993 , p . 1 ) and
Council Decision 93/324/EEC of 10 May 1993 concerning
the extension of the benefit of the provisions of                     Action brought on 24 January 1996 by the Commission of
Directive 90/53 1 /EEC in respect of the United States of             the European Communities against the Kingdom of
America ( OJ No L 125 , 1993 , p . 54 ), — the Court ( Sixth                                           Spain
 Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of the                                        ( Case C-21 /96 )
 Chamber, G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G.                                            ( 96/C 133/23 )
Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and J. L. Murray, Judges;
Advocate-General : G. Tesauro, Registrar: R. Grass, has               An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
given a judgment on 7 March 1996 , in which the operative             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
 part is as follows :                                                 24 January 1996 by the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, represented by Thomas F. Cusack, Legal
 1 , annuls Council Decision 93/323/EEC of 10 May 1993                Adviser, and Isabel Martinez del Peral, of its Legal Service,
      concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the form           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
      of a Memorandum of Understanding between the                    Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
      European Economic Community and the United States
                                                                      The Commission claims that the Court should :
       of America on government procurement and Council
      Decision 93/324/EEC of 10 May 1993 concerning the                1 , declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
       extension of the benefit of the provisions of                       administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       Directive 90/531 /EEC in respect of the United States of            Articles 3 , 4 and 5 of Council Directive 84/446/Euratom
      America ;
                                                                           of 3 September 1 984 laying down basic measures for the
                                                                           radiation protection of persons undergoing medical
 2 , maintains in force the effects of the annulled                        examination or treatment (') or by failing to inform the
       decisions;                                                          Commission of the measures it has adopted for the
                                                                           transposition of the Directive, the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                           has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty
 3 , orders the Council to pay the costs;                                  establishing the European Atomic Energy Community;
                                                                           and
 4 , orders the Commission and the United Kingdom to bear              2 , order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .
       their own costs.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
 (') OJ No C 232 , 28 . 8 . 1993 .
                                                                       Under the third paragraph of Article 161 of the Euratom
                                                                       Treaty, the Directive is binding, as to the result to be
                                                                       achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
 ---pagebreak---  No C 133/ 12           EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4 . 5 . 96
 but leaves to the national authority the choice of form and              concerning Article 119 of the Treaty establishing the
 methods .                                                                European Community ( the 'Barber Protocol ') prevail
                                                                          over German constitutional law ( Article 3 ( 1 ) of the
Under Article 1 92 of the same Treaty, the Member States are              Grundgesetz ( Basic Law)), which specifically precludes a
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or                      prohibition of retroactivity in cases such as that
particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out           described in Question 1 ?
of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the
 institutions of the Community . Furthermore, under the first        4 . Does the retroactivity permitted by German
paragraph of Article 33 of the Treaty, each Member State is              constitutional law pursuant to Article 3 ( 1 ) of the
to lay down the appropriate provisions , whether by                       Grundgesetz constitute , in a case such as that described
legislation, regulation or administrative action, to ensure              in Question 1 , an impermissible circumvention of the
compliance with the basic standards which have been                      prohibition of retroactivity contained in the Protocol
established and to take the necessary measures with regard               concerning Article 119 of the EC Treaty, where, by
to teaching, education and vocational training. In the                   contrast with Community law, the national law
present case , since the Directive was adopted on the basis of           applicable in comparable circumstances, which is
Article 31 of the Treaty, the principles which it lays down              also aimed at establishing equality of treatment in
are to be deemed to be basic standards within the meaning of             occupational pension schemes, operates retroactively in
Article 33 .                                                             favour of employees, in particular women who are the
                                                                         subject of indirect discrimination ?
The Commission claims that Articles 3 , 4 and 5 of the
Directive have been inadequately transposed, since various           5 . If Question 4 is to be answered in the affirmative :
draft Royal Decrees have not yet been adopted . The period               does the application of paragraph 2 ( 1 ) of the
prescribed in Article 399 of the Act of Accession of the                 Beschàftigungsfôrderungsgesetz        ( Law     for      the
Kingdom of Spain expired on 1 April 1986 .                               Promotion of Employment ) of 26 April 1985 , which
                                                                         purports to allow retroactivity up to 26 April 1985 ,
(') OJ No L 265 , 5 . 10 . 1984 , p . 1 .                                constitute an impermissible circumvention of the
                                                                         prohibition of retroactivity contained in the Protocol
                                                                         concerning Article 119 of the EC Treaty ( the 'Barber
                                                                         Protocol')?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                         6 . Does the retroactivity permitted pursuant to
Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg by order of that court of                   Article 3 ( 1 ) of the Grundgesetz in cases such as
20 December 1995 in the case of Lilli Schroder v. Deutsche               that described in Question 1 constitute a breach
                       Bundespost Telekom                                of Community law from the standpoint of
                         ( Case C-50/96 )
                                                                         disproportionate discrimination against nationals such
                                                                         as the German undertakings affected , or in the light of
                            96/C 133/24 )                                an interpretation of national law that renders it
                                                                         consistent with the Community rules or a principle of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                       Community law, and does Community law prevail in
the European Communities by order of the Landes                         that respect over national law ?
arbeitsgericht Hamburg ( Regional Labour Court,
Hamburg) of 20 December 1996 , which was received at the
Court Registry on 21 February 1996, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Lilli Schroder v. Deutsche Bundespost
Telekom on the following questions :
                                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
1 . Where part-time employees working less than 18 hours            Première Instance de Namur by interim order of the
     per week are excluded by gender-neutral wording from           President of that court of 16 February 1996 in the case of
     eligibility for a supplementary pension operated within        Christelle Deliège v. Asbl Ligue Francophone de Judo et
     the framework of an occupational pension scheme, and                Disciplines Associées and Asbl Ligue Belge de Judo
     approximately 95 % of the employees affected by that                                   ( Case C-51/96 )
     exclusion are women, does that constitute indirect
     discrimination against women within the meaning of the                                   ( 96/C 133/25 )
     case-law of the Court of Justice on Article 119 of the
     EEC Treaty ?                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by an interim order of the President
2 . If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative : do         of the Tribunal de Première Instance de Namur ( Court of
     the Protocol concerning Article 119 of the Treaty              First Instance, Namur) of 16 February 1996, which was
     establishing the European Community ( the ' Barber             received at the Court Registry on 21 February 1996 , for a
     Protocol') and the prohibition of retroactivity contained      preliminary ruling in the case of Christelle Deliège v. Asbl
     therein also cover cases of indirect discrimination            Ligue Francophone de Judo et Disciplines Associées and
     against women in circumstances such as those described         Asbl Ligue Belge de Judo on the following question:
     in Question 1 ?
                                                                    Whether or not rules which require a professional or
3 . If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative : does       semi-professional sportsman or a person aspiring to such
     the prohibition of retroactivity contained in the Protocol     status to have been authorized or selected by his national


title: Case C-279/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Retten i Hørsholm (Denmark) by order of that court of 4 June 2004 in the case of Anklagemyndigheden against Steffen Ryborg

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Retten i Hørsholm (Denmark) by order of that court of 4 June 2004 in the case of Anklagemyndigheden against Steffen Ryborg
   (Case C-279/04)
   (2004/C 262/43)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by the Retten i Hørsholm (Denmark), by order of 4 June 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 28 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Anklagemyndigheden against Steffen Ryborg.
   The Retten i Hørsholm asks the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following questions:

               1.a.

               Are Article 39 EC, Article 49 EC and Article 10 EC to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from requiring registration of a motor vehicle when the vehicle belongs to an employer established in a neighbouring Member State and is used by an employee who is resident in the first-mentioned Member State for work purposes and during his free time in both Member States?

               1.b

               If in the assessment for question 1.a weight is to be accorded to whether any private use of the vehicle is ancillary to business use, which criteria should be used by the national court in determining whether the non-business use of the vehicle is ancillary to the business use, when it can be assumed that the vehicle is used for business purposes, see Case C-127/86 Yves Ledoux [1988] ECR 3741, paragraph 18?


title: Case T-371/16: Action brought on 14 July 2016 — BP Aromatics v Commission

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/20

         Action brought on 14 July 2016 — BP Aromatics v Commission
   (Case T-371/16)
   (2016/C 350/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BP Aromatics Ltd (Geel, Belgium) (represented by: H. Vanhulle, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, C. Borgers and N. Baeten, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

               —

               in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged aid measure and in its qualification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 (1) and Article 107 TFUE.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107 TFUE, failed to state reasons and committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that the Belgian excess profit ruling system constitutes a State aid measure.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 16(1) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 and the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in ordering the recovery of the alleged aid.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(6) TFUE and the principle of equal treatment, and misuses its powers, by using State aid rules to prohibit the Belgian excess profit ruling system.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9).


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 June 1995 in Cases T-462/93, T-464/93 and T-470/93: Erika Lenz and Volker Lenz v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials P Action for damages P Admissibility P Time limit for bringing proceedings)

text:
No C 208/24           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          12 . 8 . 95
    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            non-material damage and , in the alternative, for
                        of 8 June 1995                              reimbursement of various expenses — the Court of First
                                                                    Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen,
in Case T-554/93 , Mary Aharn and 588 Others v. Council             acting as President, and R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
of the European Union and Commission of the European                Judges, made an order on 14 June 1995 , the operative part
                        Communities (')                             of which is as follows :
                  (Removal from the register)
                         (9SIC 208/52 )                             1 . Cases T-462/93 , T-464/93 and T-470/93 are joined;
                                                                    2 . there is no need to give a decision on the application
               (Language of the case: English)                           objecting to a judge;
In Case T-554/93 , Mary Aharn and 588 Others ( United               3 . the actions are dismissed as inadmissible;
Kingdom and Ireland ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and H. J. Bronkhorst,                4 . the applicants are ordered to pay all the costs.
Advocaat of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands,
instructed by Burges Salmon, Solicitors , with an address for       (>) OJ No C 33 , 5 . 2 . 1993 , OJ No C 54, 25 . 2 . 1993 and OJ No
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luc Frieden, 62                 C 139 , 18 . 5 . 1993 .
Avenue Guillaume, v. Council of the European Union
( Agents, A. Brautigam and M. Bishop ), and Commission of
the European Communities ( Agents, G. Rozet and G.
Docksey ), application for the annulment of Articles 8 ( 2 ) (a )
and 14 (4 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 of
22 July 1993 providing for an offer of compensation to                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
certain producers of milk and milk producers temporarily                                       of 19 June 1995
prevented from carrying out their trade, the President of the
                                                                    in Cases T-43/91 DEP, T-44/91 DEP, T-51/91 DEP and
First Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First
Instance made an order on 8 June 1995 whose operative               T-52/91 DEP: Paul Edwin Hoyer and Carine Smets v.
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities ( ! )
part is as follows :
                                                                                (Taxation of costs)
1 . the names of all the applicants, except A. T. E. Saint, C.                                   ( 95/C 208/54 )
    Murray and M. Craig, shall be removed from the list of
    applicants in Case T-554/93 ;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
2 . the applicants are to pay the costs.
                                                                    In Cases T-43/91 DEP, T-44/91 DEP, T-51 /91 DEP and
(') OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .                                  T-52/91 DEP: Paul Edwin Hoyer, a temporary agent of the
                                                                    Commission of the European Communities , residing at
                                                                    Hoeilaart ( Belgium ), and Carine Smets , a temporary agent
                                                                    of the Commission of the European Communities, residing
                                                                    at Overijse ( Belgium ), represented by Gerard van der Wal ,
                                                                    Advokaat with a right of audience before the Hoge Raad der
    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                    Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ), with an
                                                                    address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                        of 14 June 1995                             Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of the
in Cases T-462/93 , T-464/93 and T-470/93 : Erika Lenz              European Communities ( Agents : Julian Currall and
and Volker Lenz v. Commission of the European                       Hendrik van Lier ) — application for taxation of the costs
                        Communities (')                             payable pursuant to the judgments of the Court of First
 (Officials — Action for damages — Admissibility — Time             Instance of 17 March 1994 in Cases T-43/91 , T-44/91 ,
                limit for bringing proceedings)                     T-51 /91 and T-52/91 — the Court of First Instance (Third
                                                                    Chamber ), composed of J. Biancarelli , President, and C. P.
                         ( 95/C 208/53                              Briët and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
                                                                    an order on 19 June 1995 , the operative part of which is as
               (Language of the case: German)                       follows :
In Cases T-462/93 , T-464/93 and T-470/93 : Erika Lenz, a            1 . Cases T-43191 DEP, T-44/91 DEP, T-51 /91 DEP and
former official of the Commission of the European                         T-52/91 DEP are joined;
 Communities, and Volker Lenz, her son, both residing at
Osnabruck ( Germany), represented by Jürgen Schacht,                2 . the total costs recoverable by the applicants are fixed in
Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg, with an address for service in                     the sum of Fl 37 500, together with any VAT payable
                                                                          thereon .
Luxembourg care of Jean-Paul Meyer, 14 Rue Prince Jean,
Ettelbruck, v. Commission of the European Communities
 (Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and Barbara Rapp-Jung ) —              (') OJ No C 201 , 31 . 7. 1991 and OJ No C 205 , 6 . 8 . 1991 .
application for an order requiring the Commission to pay
compensation for various instances of material and


title: Case C-458/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten, Sweden) — Skatteverket v Gourmet Classic Ltd (Jurisdiction of the Court — Directive 92/83/EEC — Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages — Article 20, first indent — Alcohol contained in cooking wine — Exemption from the harmonised duty)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten, Sweden) — Skatteverket v Gourmet Classic Ltd
   (Case C-458/06) (1)

   (Jurisdiction of the Court - Directive 92/83/EEC - Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages - Article 20, first indent - Alcohol contained in cooking wine - Exemption from the harmonised duty)
   (2008/C 209/11)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Regeringsrätten
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skatteverket

      Defendant: Gourmet Classic Ltd
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regeringsrätten — Interpretation of the first indent of Article 20 of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21) — Exemption from duty — Product based on wine, with an alcoholic content of 4.8 % per 100 kg of finished product, intended for cooking
   Operative part of the judgment
   The alcohol contained in cooking wine is, if it has an alcoholic strength exceeding 1.2 % by volume, to be classified as ethyl alcohol as referred to in the first indent of Article 20 of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Joined Cases T-268/15 and T-272/15: Order of the Court of 8 November 2016 — Apcoa Parking Holdings v EUIPO (PARKWAY) (European Union trade mark — Applications for European Union figurative and word marks PARKWAY — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/32

         Order of the Court of 8 November 2016 — Apcoa Parking Holdings v EUIPO (PARKWAY)
   (Joined Cases T-268/15 and T-272/15) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Applications for European Union figurative and word marks PARKWAY - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2017/C 014/39)
   Language of the Case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Apcoa Parking Holdings GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: A. Lohmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. Kunz, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Two actions brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2015 (Cases R 2063/2014-4 and R 2062/2014-4) concerning applications for registration of the figurative and word signs PARKWAY as European Union trade marks.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the actions;

               2)

               Orders Apcoa Parking Holdings GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


title: Case T-291/14: Action brought on 2 May 2014  — egeplast international v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/42

         Action brought on 2 May 2014 — egeplast international v Commission
   (Case T-291/14)
   2014/C 223/45
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: egeplast international GmbH (Greven, Germany) (represented by: A. Rosenfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul European Commission Decision C(2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 on State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               No favouring within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the special compensation regime of the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG) does not favour the applicant within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, but merely reduces a charge severely affecting the applicant’s competitiveness, which was imposed on the applicant only as a result of the introduction of the EEG-surcharge. It serves partially to compensate for a disadvantage and not to provide an advantage.

               2.

               No selectivity

                           —

                           The applicant also claims that the special compensation regime is not selective because it is not limited to certain users or branches of production. Also in practice, the range of users which benefited from the compensation regime is just as diverse. The regime is fully compatible with the 2012 EEG and allows for a system of charges that is coherent with the EEG system.

               3.

               No State resources or resources imputable to the State

                           —

                           The applicant further submits that the EEG-surcharge revenues are not State resources or resources imputable to the State. The EEG-surcharge serves to fulfil the transmission system operators’ (hereinafter referred to as TSOs) entitlement under civil law against the electricity suppliers for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by them in the marketing of electricity. The amount of the surcharge is determined by the TSOs without any State involvement. The powers conferred upon the Bundesnetzagentur (federal network agency) served only to review the proper determination of the amount of the surcharge by the TSOs. They did not, however, obtain for the Bundesnetzagentur any permanent control or power of disposal over the revenue from the surcharge.

               4.

               No distortion of competition and effect on trade

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that it follows from the non-State nature of the surcharge revenue that reductions of the EEG-surcharge did not constitute a waiver of State revenue. There is, further, no waiver here because any loss of revenue of the surcharge account was counter-financed from private resources in the form of a higher surcharge amount for non-privileged end-consumers.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 February 1995 in Case T-552/93: Giuseppe Grassi v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Admissibility - Prior complaint through official channels - Implied decision, not contested within the period prescribed, rejecting a request - Subsequent express decision - Confirmatory act - Out of time)

text:
No C 87/12               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8 . 4 . 95
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Embassy,      9   Boulevard       Prince  Henri,  against the
                       of 15 February 1995                           Commission of the European Communities (Agents: B. J.
                                                                     Drijber and J. Bourgeois ), supported by Kali and Salz
in Case T-552/93 : Giuseppe Grassi v. Commission of the              Beteiligungs-Aktiengesellschaft and Kali und Salz GmbH,
                  European Communities f 1 )                         established in Kassel (Federal Republic of Germany),
 (Officials  — Admissibility — Prior complaint through               represented by Karlheinz Quack, of the Berlin Bar, and
 official channels — Implied decision, not contested within          Georg Albrechtskirchinger, of the Frankfurt am Main Bar,
 the period prescribed, rejecting a request — Subsequent             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
    express decision — Confirmatory act — Out of time)               of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe — application for the
                             ( 95/C 87/26                            partial annulment, first, of Article 1 of the decision of the
                                                                     Commission of 14 December 1993 relating to a proceeding
                                                                     under Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89 of
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations
                                                                     between            undertakings           ( IV-M.308          —
In Case T-552/93 : Giuseppe Grassi, a temporary agent of             Kali+Salz/MdK/Treuhand ), in so far as it makes the
the Commission of the European Communities assigned to               declaring of the concentration compatible with the common
the Joint Research Centre, Ispra, residing at Cadrezzate,            market conditional upon compliance with the conditions set
represented by Angelo Ulgheri, of the Milan Bar, with an             out in paragraph 63 thereof and, secondly, of the decision,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 in so far as it. has accepted the commitment mentioned in
Franco " Colussi, 36 Rue Wiltz, v. Commission of the                 paragraph 65 thereof whereby Kali und Salz AG undertook
European Communities (Agent: G. Valsesia ) — application             to modify the corporate structure of Potacan by 30 June
for the annulment of the decision of the Commission of               1994 — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber,
24 September 1992 rejecting the applicant's request for the          extended composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf,
transfer of his pension rights, acquired in the Italian State        President, D. P. M. Barrington, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and
pension scheme, to the Community pension scheme — the                A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J.             order on 1 February 1995, the operative part of which is as
Biancarelli, President, and C. P. Briët and C. W. Bellamy,           follows :
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
 15 February 1995 , in which it:                                     1 , jurisdiction is declined in Case T-88/94, Société
                                                                         Commerciale des Potasses et de l'Azote and Entreprise
                                                                         Minière et Chimique v. Commission of the European
 1 . dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible;
                                                                         Communities, in order to enable the Court ofJustice to
                                                                         rule on the application for annulment;
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                     2 . the costs are reserved.
(!) OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
                                                                     (!) OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
          (Second Chamber, extended composition)                                           of 6 February 1995
                        of 1 February 1995                           in Case T-66/94: Auditel Sri v. Commission of the European
in Case T-88/94: Société Commerciale des Potasses et de
                                                                                Communities (*)
l'Azote and Entreprise Minière et Chimique v. Commission             (Intervention — Confidentiality — Rules on the use of
              of the European Communities ( a )                                                   languages)
                  (Disclaimer ofjurisdiction)                                                   ( 95/C 87/28 )
                            ( 95/C 87/27)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    In Case T-66/94: Auditel Sri, established in Milan (Italy),
                                                                    represented by Giuseppe Sena and Paola Tarchini, of the
In Case T- 8 8/94 : Societe Commerciale des Potasses et de          Milan Bar, Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, Giuseppe
l'Azote, established in Mulhouse (France ), and Entreprise           Scassellati Sforzolini and Francesca Maria Moretti, of the
Miniere et Chimique, established at Paris, represented by           Bologna Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Charles Price, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service     the office of Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 15 Cote d'Eich, v.
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong, 14A Rue               Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G.
des Bains, supported by French Republic (Agents : Edwige            Marenco and A. Dal Ferro) — application for the
Belliard, Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey), with         annulment of Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision
an address for service in Luxembourg at the French                  93/668/EC of 24 November 1993 relating to a proceeding


title: Case T-14/13: Order of the General Court of 3 September 2013 — Seal Trademarks v OHIM — Exel Composites (XCEL)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/30

         Order of the General Court of 3 September 2013 — Seal Trademarks v OHIM — Exel Composites (XCEL)
   (Case T-14/13) (1)

   2013/C 336/66
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case C-614/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Atanas Ognyanov (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Content of a request for a preliminary ruling — National rule providing that the national court is to be disqualified because it stated a provisional opinion in the request for a preliminary ruling when setting out the factual and legal context — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 48(1))

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Atanas Ognyanov
   (Case C-614/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Content of a request for a preliminary ruling - National rule providing that the national court is to be disqualified because it stated a provisional opinion in the request for a preliminary ruling when setting out the factual and legal context - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 48(1)))
   (2016/C 335/10)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Sofiyski gradski sad

      Party in the main proceedings

   Atanas Ognyanov

      Intervener: Sofiyska gradska prokuratura

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 267 TFEU and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, read in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 and of Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a national rule which is interpreted in such a way as to oblige the referring court to disqualify itself from a pending case, on the ground that it set out, in its request for a preliminary ruling, the factual and legal context of that case.

               2.

               EU law, and in particular Article 267 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the referring court, after the delivery of the preliminary ruling, to hear the parties again and to undertake further inquiries, which might lead it to alter the findings of fact or law made in the request for a preliminary ruling, nor does it prohibit the referring court from doing so, provided that the referring court gives full effect to the interpretation of EU law adopted by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

               3.

               EU law must be interpreted as precluding a referring court from applying a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is deemed to be contrary to EU law.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.


title: Case T-144/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Theralab (VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA — Earlier EU word mark IDEALINA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/51

      Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Theralab (VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA)
      (Case T-144/15) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA - Earlier EU word mark IDEALINA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2016/C 211/64)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: L’Oréal, SA (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Sena Mioludo, avocat)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Theralab — Produtos Farmacêuticos e Nutracêuticos, Lda (Viseu, Portugal)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2015 (Case R 1097/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Theralab — Produtos Farmacêuticos e Nutracêuticos and L’Oréal.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders L’Oréal, SA, to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


title: Case T-325/06: Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Boston Scientific v OHIM — Terumo (CAPIO)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/74

         Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Boston Scientific v OHIM — Terumo (CAPIO)
   (Case T-325/06)
   (2006/C 326/152)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Boston Scientific Ltd (Christ Church, Barbados) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Terumo Kabushiki Kaisha (Tokyo, Japan)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2006, served to the representatives of the plaintiff on 18 September 2006, in Case R 61/2006-2;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CAPIO’ for goods in class 10 — application No 2 554 434

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Terumo Kabushiki Kaisha

      Mark or sign cited: The national and Community word marks ‘CAPIOX’ and ‘CAPIOX PULSE’ for goods in class 10

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43 of Council Regulation No 40/94 and Rule 22 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 as Terumo failed to prove sufficient use of its trade mark, and of Article 8(1)(b) of the Council regulation as the conflicting trade marks are not likely to be confused.


title: Case T-4/15: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2016 — Beiersdorf v EUIPO (Q10) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Q10 — Refusal to register a disclaimer as to the scope of the protection — Article 37(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive Character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2016 — Beiersdorf v EUIPO (Q10)
   (Case T-4/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Q10 - Refusal to register a disclaimer as to the scope of the protection - Article 37(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive Character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 383/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Beiersdorf AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented initially by: A. Renck and J. Fuhrmann, and subsequently by J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2014 (Case R 2050/2013-1), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign Q10 as an EU trademark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Beiersdorf AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by order of that court of 25 May 1995, in the case of Elsbeth Freifrau von Horn against Kevin Cinnamond (Case C-163/95)

text:
22 . 7. 95            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 189/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Belgian Raad               conformity of the equipment under the approval procedure
van State by judgment of that court of 7 February 1995 in              is independent from any economic agent offering goods or
        the case of André &Co NV v. Belgian State                      services in the telecommunications sector ?
                         Case C-153/95 )
                           ( 95/C 189/20 )                             H OJ No L 131 , 27 . 5 . 1988 , p . 73 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Belgian Raad
van State ( State Council ) of 7 February 1995 , which was
received at the Court Registry on 15 May 1995 , for a
preliminary ruling in the case of André & Co NV v. Belgian             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by
State on the following questions :                                     order of that court of 25 May 1995 , in the case of Elsbeth
                                                                                Freifrau von Horn against Kevin Cinnamond
1 . Must Article 8 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 926/80 of                              ( Case C-163/95 )
     15 April 1980 be interpreted as meaning that                                                ( 95/C 189/22
     application of that Regulation in respect of an export
     operation must be refused where the products to which             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     the new monetary compensatory amount applies were                 European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
     imported less than six months before the export                   of 25 May 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
     operation ?                                                       on 29 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                       Elsbeth Freifrau von Horn against Kevin Cinnamond, on
2 . Must Article 8 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 926/80 be      the following questions :
     interpreted as meaning that application of that
     Regulation must also be refused with regard to an                 In a case where :
     export operation in respect of which monetary
     compensatory amounts are due , where the export
     operation was preceded less than six months before by             ( a ) there are pending proceedings in two different
     an import operation for which monetary compensatory                     Contracting States involving the same cause of action
     amounts were received by a person other than the                        and between the same parties;
     person who exported the products ?
                                                                       ( b ) the first such proceedings in time were initiated in
                                                                             Contracting State A before the Brussels Convention
                                                                             and/or any applicable Accession Convention came into
                                                                             force in that State;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale de                 (c ) the second such proceedings are initiated in
Police, Nancy, by judgment of that court of 25 April 1995 in                 Contracting State B in accordance with Article 2 of the
                                                                             Brussels Convention after the Brussels Convention
the case of Ministère Public against Philippe Baumert and
                       Jean Loup Dirler                                      and/or any applicable Accession Convention has come
                                                                             into force in both State A and State B;
                        ( Case C-162/95 )
                           ( 95/C 189/21 )                                   and having regard to Article 29.1 of the San Sebastian
                                                                             Convention and the corresponding Articles in any other
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       applicable Accession Convention and Article 21 of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunale de                       Brussels Convention ( as amended ):
Police ( Criminal Court), Nancy, of 25 April 1995 , which
was received at the Court Registry on 23 May 1995 , for a                    1 . Does the Brussels Convention ( as amended ) and/or
preliminary ruling in the case of Ministère Public (Public                        any applicable Accession Convention lay down
Prosecutor ) against Philippe Baumert and Jean Loup Dirler                        any, and if so what, rules as to whether the
on the following question:                                                        proceedings in State B may or must be stayed , or
                                                                                jurisdiction declined, on the ground of pending
                                                                                proceedings in State A ?
Does Article 6 of Directive 88/301/EEC of 16 May 1988 on
competition in the markets in telecommunications terminal
                                                                                and in particular,
equipment i 1 ) preclude the application of national rules
which prohibit economic agents from, and penalize them
                                                                             2 . Is the Court second seised required or permitted ,
for, manufacturing, importing, holding for sale, selling,
distributing or advertising terminal equipment without                            for the purpose of deciding whether or not to
furnishing proof, in the form of an approval or another                           decline jurisdiction in respect of, or to stay, the
document regarded as equivalent, that such equipment                              proceedings before it, to conduct any, and, if so,
                                                                                what examination of the basis upon which the
conforms to certain essential requirements relating in
                                                                                Court first seised assumed jurisdiction ?
particular to the safety of users and the proper functioning
of the network, even though there is no guarantee that
the laboratory responsible for monitoring the technical


title: Case T-212/09: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2012 — Denmark v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Arable crops — Setting aside of land)

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2012 — Denmark v Commission
   (Case T-212/09) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Arable crops - Setting aside of land)
   2012/C 243/27
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented initially by: J. Bering Liisberg, and subsequently by: V. Pasternak Jorgensen, acting as Agents, and by P. Biering and J. Pinborg, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: N. Rasmussen and F. Jimeno Fernández; and subsequently by F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents, and by T. Ryhl, lawyer)

      Re:

   Annulment in part of Commission Decision 2009/253/EC of 19 March 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (OJ 2009 L 75, p. 15), in so far as it excludes from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Denmark in respect of the setting aside of land

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 January 2005 in Case C-254/03 P Eduardo Vieira SA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Fisheries — Fisheries agreement with Argentina — Community financial aid — Reduction)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 13 January 2005
   in Case C-254/03 P Eduardo Vieira SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - Fisheries - Fisheries agreement with Argentina - Community financial aid - Reduction)
   (2005/C 57/15)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-254/03 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice brought on 13 June 2003 by Eduardo Vieira SA (lawyers: J.-R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and D. Domínguez Pérez), the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: S. Pardo Quintillán, and J. Rivas-Andres and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert) – the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 January 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Eduardo Vieira SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 2.8.2003.


title: Action brought on 24 July 1997 by Seiga SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-218/97)

text:
18 . 10 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 318/25
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   by Seiga SA, whose registered office is at Thiais ( France ),
                                                                      respresented by Fabrice Goguel, of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
The applicant, which has imported television sets                     Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue .
manufactured in Turkey by various companies since 1987/
88 , applies in this case for the annulment of a decision by
the Commission, which held, on an application submitted               The applicant claims that the Court should:
by France, that 'it is justified to effect post-clearance
recovery of import duties, and the remission of those
duties is not justified in an individual case'.                       — annul the Commission Decision dated 24 April 1997,
The facts are similar to those in Cases T-l 86/97 et seq (')          — declare the applicant entitled to non-recovery, post
                                                                             clearance, of the duties in dispute,
Concerning the legal background, the applicant in this
case argues that the contested decision makes no reference            — in the alternative, declare the applicant entitled to the
to it, that there has been insufficient reasoning, and that                  remission of those duties,
both the Turkish customs authorities and the Commission
committed errors . It submits that the Commission failed
to fulfil its obligations and the legitimate expectations             — order the Commission to pay the costs .
which Community importers might place in its action.
This constituted an 'error on the part of the competent
authorities', within the meaning of Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
No 1697/79 , which the person liable could not reasonably
have detected, since the A.TR documents duly
authenticated by the Turkish authorities could not fail to
give rise to legitimate expectations on the part of                   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                      in Case T-2 16/97 (').
Community importers, and the latter had no reason to
cast doubt on them .
                                                                      ( ] ) See previous case .
The applicant maintains that all the conditions for
applying Article 5 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1697/79
are fulfilled in this case, and that it is entitled to non-post
clearance recovery of the customs duties in question,
having itself acted in good faith, complying with all the
relevant provisions.                                                  Action brought on 24 July 1997 by Seiga SA against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
Finally, the applicant considers that it fulfils all the                                        ( Case T-2 18/97)
conditions in order to benefit from remission of the
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/50 )
customs duties in question, pursuant to Article 13 of
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1430/79 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(') See page 17 of this Official Journal.
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 24 July 1997
                                                                      by Seiga SA, the successor of High Tech Industries SA,
                                                                      whose registered office is at Thiais ( France ), represented
Action brought on 24 July 1997 by Seiga SA against the                by Fabrice Goguel, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
          Commission of the European Communities                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
                                                                      31 Grand-Rue .
                         ( Case T-2 17/97)
                           ( 97/C 318/49 )
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      — annul the Commission Decision dated 24 April 1997,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     — declare the applicant entitled to non-recovery, post
Instance of the European Communities on 24 July 1997                         clearance, of the duties in dispute,
 ---pagebreak--- C 318/26               EN ]                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18 . 10 . 97
— in the alternative, declare the applicant entitled to the             Staff Regulations, which is a clear provision requiring no
     remission of those duties;                                         clarification .
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                In adopting the contested decision, the appointing
                                                                        authority applied criteria for granting leave which remain
                                                                        shrouded in mystery, the legal justification of which has
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     not been explained . In so doing, it also infringed Article 25
                                                                        of the Staff Regulations .
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
in Case T-2 16/97 (').
(') See page 24 of this Official Journal.
                                                                        Action brought on 30 July 1997 by Alfons Steffens against
                                                                        the Council of the European Union and the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-222/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/52 )
Action brought on 25 July 1997 by Anita Brems against
              the Council of the European Union                                         (Language of the case: German)
                         ( Case T-219/97)
                           ( 97/C 318/51 )                              An action against the Council of the European Union
                                                                        and the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                 (Language of the case: French)                         Communities on 30 July 1997 by Alfons Steffens,
                                                                        of Aschendorf/Moor ( Federal Republic of Germany),
                                                                        represented by Burkhard Josef Remmers, Rechtsanwalt,
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 Papenburg ( Germany ), with an address for service in
brought before the Court of First Instance on 25 July                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of Turk & Prum, 13a
1997 by Anita Brems, resident in Relegem ( Belgium ),                   Avenue Guillaume .
represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson                 The applicant claims that the Court should order the
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                              defendants to pay to the applicant damages amounting to
                                                                        DM 69 503,40, together with 8 % interest from 1 October
                                                                        1993 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— annul the Council's decisions refusing to allow her the
     entire period from 24 May to 8 June 1996 as sick                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
     leave,                                                             those in the other milk quota cases.
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        Action brought on 30 July 1997 by R. Kooyman against
                                                                                the European Parliament
The application challenges the legality of the refusal to                                       ( Case T-223/97)
allow as sick-leave the entire period of the applicant's
absence from 24 May to 8 June 1996 .                                                              ( 97/C 318/53 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
According to the applicant, in refusing her sick-leave
covering her entire absence, the appointing authority
breached the principles set out in Article 59 of the Staff              An action against the European Parliament was brought
Regulations as clarified in the case-law of the Court of                before the Court of First Instance of the European
Justice and the Court of First Instance .                               Communities on 30 July 1997 by R. Kooyman, a freelance
                                                                        interpreter, resident at Zurich ( Switzerland ), represented
                                                                        by G. Van der Wal, a Member of the Orde van Advocaten
The    conclusion     of    the   heads   of  administration   of       at the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme
1 February 1996 concerning grant of the second half of                  Court), Barents & Krans Advocaten Notarissen, Brussels,
special leave for a thermal cure is illegal, inasmuch as it             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
has the effect of restricting the scope of Article 59 of the            Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-rue .


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2002 in Case C-140/00: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Fisheries — Conservation and management of fishery resources — Control measures for fishing activities)

text:
21.12.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 323/11
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                           (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 24 October 2002                                                        of 14 November 2002
in Case C-121/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                   in Case C-140/00: Commission of the European Communi-
   the Bezirksgericht Innere Stadt Wien): Walter Hahn ( 1)                  ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland ( 1)
(Fisheries — Health policy — Directive 91/493/EEC and
Decision 94/356/EC — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC —                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Principle of proportionality — Limit values for the presence                Fisheries — Conservation and management of fishery
      of Listeria monocytogenes in smoked fish products)                         resources — Control measures for fishing activities)
                           (2002/C 323/11)                                                           (2002/C 323/12)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                              (Language of the case: English)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-140/00, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agents: T. van Rijn and K. Fitch) v United Kingdom of Great
                                                                            Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill, assisted by
                                                                            M. Hoskins, barrister): Application for a declaration that, in
                                                                            respect of each of the years 1991 to 1996, by:
In Case C-121/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bezirksgericht Innere Stadt Wien (Austria) for a
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that                  —     failing to put in place appropriate detailed rules for the
court against Walter Hahn on the interpretation of Council                        utilisation of the quotas allocated to it,
Directive 91/493/EEC laying down the health conditions for
the production and the placing on the market of fishery
products (OJ 1991 L 268, p. 15), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                 —     failing to carry out the inspections and other controls
                                                                                required by the relevant Community regulations,
composed of: A. La Pergola, acting as President of the Fifth
Chamber, P. Jann and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges;
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                    —     failing provisionally to close certain fisheries when quotas
Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 October 2002 , in                           had been exhausted,
which it has ruled:
                                                                            —     failing to take administrative or penal action against the
Neither Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying                       masters of vessels infringing the regulations or against
down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the              any other person responsible for such infringement,
market of fishery products and Commission Decision 94/356/EC of
20 May 1994 laying down detailed rules for the application of               the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has
Council Directive 91/493/EEC as regards own health checks on                failed to comply with its obligations under Article 5(2) of
fishery products nor Articles 28 EC and 30 EC preclude the                  Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983
application of national legislation laying down zero tolerance for the      establishing a Community system for the conservation and
presence of Listeria monocytogenes in fish products which have not          management of fishery resources (OJ 1983 L 24, p. 1) or, with
been chemically preserved.                                                  effect from 1 January 1993, Article 9(2) of Council Regulation
                                                                            (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a
                                                                            Community system for fisheries and aquaculture (OJ 1992
( 1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                            L 389, p. 1), as well as Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control
                                                                            measures for fishing activities (OJ 1987 L 207, p. 1) or, with
                                                                            effect from 1 January 1994, Article 2 of Council Regulation
                                                                            (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control
 ---pagebreak--- C 323/12                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         21.12.2002
system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
L 261, p. 1), Article 11(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 or
Article 21 of Regulation No 2847/93, Article 1(2) of Regu-
lation No 2241/87, or Article 31 of Regulation No 2847/93,
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, Presi-                                          of 5 November 2002
dent of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola
(Rapporteur), P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                  in Case C-208/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
on 14 November 2002, in which it:
                                                                             from the Bundesgerichtshof ): Überseering BV v Nordic
                                                                              Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH (NCC) (1)
1.    Declares that, in respect of each of the years 1991 to 1996,
      by:                                                                    (Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — Company formed in accordance
                                                                             with the law of a Member State and having its registered
                                                                             office there — Company exercising its freedom of establish-
                                                                             ment in another Member State — Company deemed to have
      —     failing to put in place appropriate detailed rules for the       transferred its actual centre of administration to the host
            utilisation of the quotas allocated to it and to carry out       Member State under the law of that State — Non-recognition
            the inspections and other controls required by the relevant      by the host Member State of the company’s legal capacity
            Community regulations,                                           and its capacity to be a party to legal proceedings —
                                                                                Restriction on freedom of establishment — Justification)
      —     failing provisionally to close certain fisheries when quotas
            were exhausted,
                                                                                (2002/C 323/13)
      —     failing to take administrative or penal action against the
            masters of vessels infringing those regulations or against                          (Language of the case: German)
            any other person responsible for such infringement,
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has                               in the European Court Reports)
      failed to comply with its obligations under Article 5(2) of
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983
      establishing a Community system for the conservation and
      management of fishery resources and, with effect from 1 January
      1993, Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92
      of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for
      fisheries and aquaculture, as well as Article 1(1) of Council          In Case C-208/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing               EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary
                                                                             ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
      certain control measures for fishing activities and, with effect
      from 1 January 1994, Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC)             Überseering BV and Nordic Construction Company Bauma-
                                                                             nagement GmbH (NCC), on the interpretation of Articles 43
      No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control
      system applicable to the common fisheries policy, Article 11(2)        EC and 48 EC, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
      of Regulation No 2241/87 and, with effect from 1 January               President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and
                                                                             R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
      1994, Article 21 of Regulation No 2847/93, and Article 1(2)
      of Regulation No 2241/87 and, with effect from 1 January               D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
                                                                             N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
      1994, Article 31 of Regulation No 2847/93;
                                                                             D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Princi-
                                                                             pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                             5 November 2002, in which it has ruled:
2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
      Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                             1.    Where a company formed in accordance with the law of a
                                                                                Member State (‘A’) in which it has its registered office is
                                                                                deemed, under the law of another Member State (‘B’), to have
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.                                                        moved its actual centre of administration to Member State B,
                                                                                Articles 43 EC and 48 EC preclude Member State B from
                                                                                denying the company legal capacity and, consequently, the
                                                                                capacity to bring legal proceedings before its national courts for
                                                                                the purpose of enforcing rights under a contract with a company
                                                                                established in Member State B.


title: Case T-492/15: Action brought on 26 August 2015 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/41

         Action brought on 26 August 2015 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission
   (Case T-492/15)
   (2015/C 363/50)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 1 October 2014 in Case SA.21121 (C 29/2008) (ex NN 54/2007) — Flughafen Hahn and Ryanair;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies, in essence, on the following:

               —

               procedural defects due to failing to hold further talks with the applicant in 2014,

               —

               an incomplete presentation of the case, although the facts of the case were known to the defendant at the time of the adoption of the contested decision,

               —

               misrepresentation of the facts of the case, since the Commission drew an incorrect picture of the case by not having regard to certain facts,

               —

               manifest contradictions in the contested decision,

               —

               incorrect assessment in law of the measures in favour of the airport at issue in so far as, within the meaning of Article 107(1) of TFEU, certain measures were not classified as State aid and others were classified as State aid in conformity with the internal market;

               —

               incorrect assessment in law of the measures in favour of the airline at issue, since they constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of TFEU.