title: Case T-68/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies v Commission (State aid — Restructuring aid granted by the Hellenic Republic to the airline Olympic Airways — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Misuse of the aid — New aid — Burden of proof — Right to be heard — Private creditor test — Error of fact — Manifest error of assessment — Statement of reasons — Articles 87(1) EC and (3)(c) EC)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies v Commission
   (Case T-68/03) (1)

   (State aid - Restructuring aid granted by the Hellenic Republic to the airline Olympic Airways - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Misuse of the aid - New aid - Burden of proof - Right to be heard - Private creditor test - Error of fact - Manifest error of assessment - Statement of reasons - Articles 87(1) EC and (3)(c) EC)
   (2007/C 247/32)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies AE, formerly Olympiaki Aeroporia AE (Athens, Greece) (represented first by D. Waelbroeck and E. Bourtzalas, lawyers, J. Ellison and M. Hall, Solicitors, and A. Kalogeropoulos and C. Tagaras, lawyers, and then by P. Anestis, lawyer, and T. Soames, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and J. L. Buendía Sierra, acting as Agents, and A. Oikonomou, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2003/372/EC of 11 December 2002 on aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airways (OJ 2003, L 132, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Annuls Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/372/EC of 11 December 2002 on aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airways in so far as they concern tolerance of persistent non-payment of airport charges owed by Olympic Airways to Athens International Airport and of VAT owed by Olympic Aviation on fuel and spare parts.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application.

               3.

               Orders Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies AE to pay 75 % of its own costs and of those of the Commission and orders the Commission to pay 25 % of its own costs and of those of Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.


title: Case C-176/03: Action brought on 15 April 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Council of the European Union

text:
7.6.2003                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 135/21
Action brought on 15 April 2003 by the Commission of                      treaty. The same is true of the content of the framework
the European Communities against the Council of the                       decision. The matters which Articles 2 and 3 of the framework
                          European Union                                  decision require Member States to regard as environmental
                                                                          offences refer, for the most part, to actions covered by
                                                                          Community law.
                          (Case C-176/03)
                          (2003/C 135/31)                                 Article 47 of the Treaty on European union lays down the
                                                                          primacy of Community provisions and it is therefore not
                                                                          legally possible to adopt acts on the basis of that treaty if there
                                                                          is Community competence to do so.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-              The Commission also claims that the Communities have
ties on 15 April 2003 by the Commission of the European                   competence to require the Member States to impose criminal
Communities, represented by J.-F. Pasquier and W. Bog-                    penalties where that is necessary in order to guarantee the
ensberger, acting as Agents, with an address for service in               effect and efficacy of Community law.
Luxembourg.
                                                                          In that regard, the Commission submits, first, that according
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                    to settled case-law of the Court of Justice, as set out for
the Court should:                                                         example in Case 68/88 Commission v Greece [1989] ECR
                                                                          2966, the Member States must ensure that infringements
—     declare that the Council Framework Decision of 27 Janu-             of Community law are penalised under conditions, both
      ary 2003 on the protection of the environment through               procedural and substantive, which are analogous to those
      criminal law ( 1) is unlawful;                                      applicable to infringements of national law of a similar
                                                                          nature and importance and which make the penalty effective,
                                                                          proportionate and dissuasive. The Member States may there-
—     annul that framework decision;
                                                                          fore be required to provide criminal penalties for infringements
                                                                          of Community law. The Community measure may even itself
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.           define the types of penalties which the Member States may
                                                                          establish (see, for example, Article 31 of Council Regulation
                                                                          (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control
                                                                          system applicable to the common fisheries policy ( 2).
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The Commission observes, next, that as Community law
The action is based on Article 35(6) of the Treaty on European            currently stands, if the Community legislature considers that
Union.                                                                    compliance with the rules which it lays down can be guaran-
                                                                          teed only by the imposition of criminal penalties, it has power
                                                                          to require the Member States to provide for such penalties.
The Commission unreservedly supports the objectives of the
framework decision but disputes the legal basis adopted in
                                                                          (1 ) Framework Decision 2003/80/JHI, OJ L 29, 5.2.2003, p. 55.
order to provide for the measures in question, namely the
                                                                          (2 ) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1.
Treaty on European Union and in particular Articles 29, 31(e)
and 34(2)(b) of that treaty. The measures in question are
clearly matters of Community competence. The choice of
legal basis is important in this case because of the special
institutional features of Title VI of the Treaty on European
Union which, inter alia, does not have any equivalent to the
infringement procedure.
                                                                          Action brought on 28 April 2003 by the Kingdom
                                                                          of Belgium against the Commission of the European
The choice of legal basis of an act must, according to the case-                                    Communities
law, be based on objective criteria that are susceptible to
judicial review, as regards in particular the purpose and content                                 (Case C-182/03)
of the act.
                                                                                (2003/C 135/32)
In the present case, both the purpose and the content of
the framework decision manifestly fall within the scope of
Community competencies. The aim of the framework decision                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
is to protect the environment by imposing penalties on                    ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
infringements adversely affecting it, which corresponds to                Communities on 28 April 2003 by the Kingdom of Belgium,
Community competencies such as those referred to in Title XIX             represented by A. Snoecx, acting as Agent, assisted by P. Kelley,
of the EC Treaty (Articles 174 to 176) and by Article 6 of that           B. van der Walle de Ghelcke and J. Wouters, avocats.


title: Case T-671/15: Order of the General Court of 19 October 2016 — E-Control v ACER (Action for annulment — Energy — Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 — Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 — Opinion of ACER — National regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of allocation of cross-border electricity transmission capacity — Central-East Europe region — Compatibility — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/23

         Order of the General Court of 19 October 2016 — E-Control v ACER
   (Case T-671/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Energy - Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 - Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 - Opinion of ACER - National regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of allocation of cross-border electricity transmission capacity - Central-East Europe region - Compatibility - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 462/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E-Control) (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: F. Schuhmacher, lawyer)

      Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) (represented by: E. Tremmel, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Opinion No 09/2015 of ACER of 23 September 2015 on the compliance of national regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of allocation of cross-border transmission capacity in the Central-East Europe region with Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 and the Guidelines on the management and allocation of available transfer capacity of interconnections between national systems contained in Annex I thereto.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to rule on the applications to intervene of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, Verbund AG and Polskie Sieci Elektroenergetyczne S.A.

               3.

               Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E-Control) shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER), including those relating to the interim proceedings.

               4.

               The Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, Verbund AG and Polskie Sieci Elektroenergetyczne S.A. shall bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case F-67/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — Opreana v Commission (Civil service — Temporary member of staff — Temporary member of staff occupying a permanent position — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Pregnancy — Act adversely affecting a member of staff — Lack of competence of the author of an act adversely affecting a member of staff — Right to be heard — Duty to have regard to the welfare of staff)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/31

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — Opreana v Commission
      (Case F-67/15) (1)

      ((Civil service - Temporary member of staff - Temporary member of staff occupying a permanent position - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Pregnancy - Act adversely affecting a member of staff - Lack of competence of the author of an act adversely affecting a member of staff - Right to be heard - Duty to have regard to the welfare of staff))
      (2016/C 364/35)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Luisa Opreana (Arlon, Belgium) (represented by: initially by A. Salerno, lawyer, and subsequently by A. Salerno and P. Singer, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision not to extend the applicant’s contract beyond its termination date, although she was coming to the end of her pregnancy.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Annuls the European Commission’s decision not to renew Ms Luisa Opreana’s temporary staff contract, which came to an end on 31 August 2014;

                  2.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ms Opreana.

         (1)  OJ C 213, 29/6/2015, p. 50.


title: Case T-191/15: Order of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — SLE Schuh v EUIPO — Vigoss Tekstil Konfeksiyon (VIOS)

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/40

         Order of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — SLE Schuh v EUIPO — Vigoss Tekstil Konfeksiyon (VIOS)
   (Case T-191/15) (1)

   (2016/C 279/56)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 June 1999 in Case C-75/97: Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Definition - Increased reductions in social security contributions in certain industrial sectors - Maribel bis/ter scheme)

text:
C 246/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          28.8.1999
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Second Chamber)
                           of 10 June 1999                                                          (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-376/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Bezirksregierung                                                  of 7 June 1999
               Lüneburg v Karl-Heinz Wettwer (1)
(Special premium for beef producers — Obligation to keep
cattle on the applicant’s holding for a minimum period —                   in Case C-75/97: Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of
Transfer of the holding during that period by way of                                        the European Communities (1)
anticipated succession inter vivos — Effect on entitlement to
                             the premium)
                           (1999/C 246/02)                                 (State aid — Definition — Increased reductions in social
                                                                           security contributions in certain industrial sectors — Maribel
                                                                                bis/ter scheme)
                    (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                   (1999/C 246/03)
In Case C-376/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Bundesverwaltungs-
gericht (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Bezirksregierung Lüneburg                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
and Karl-Heinz Wettwer on the interpretation of certain
provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of
27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in
beef and veal (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 187), as
amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 571/89 of 2 March                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
1989 (OJ 1989 L 61, p. 43), Council Regulation (EEC) No                                       in the European Court Reports)
468/87 of 10 February 1987 laying down general rules
applying to the special premium for beef producers (OJ 1987
L 48, p. 4) and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 714/89 of
20 March 1989 laying down detailed rules applying to the                   In Case C-75/97: Kingdom of Belgium (Agents: Gerwin van
special premium for beef producers (OJ 1989 L 78, p. 38) —                 Gerven and Koen Coppenholle) v Commission of the European
the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: G. Hirsch, Presi-                 Communities (Agents: Gérard Rozet and Wouter Wils) —
dent of the Chamber, G.F. Mancini and R. Schintgen (Rappor-                application for annulment of Commission Decision 97/239/EC
teur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,            of 4 December 1996 concerning aid granted by Belgium under
has given a judgment on 10 June 1999, in which it has ruled:               the Maribel bis/ter scheme (OJ 1997 L 95, p. 25) — the
                                                                           Court, composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,
Article 4a(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of 27           G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), G.F. Mancini, H. Ragnemalm and
June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in beef and             R. Schintgen, Judges; A. La Pergola, Registrar; D. Louterman-
veal, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 571/89 of 2                Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
March 1989, in conjunction with the provisions of Council Regu-            judgment on 17 June 1999, in which it:
lation (EEC) No 468/87 of 10 February 1987 laying down general
rules applying to the special premium for beef producers and
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 714/89 of 20 March 1989                     1. Dismisses the application;
laying down detailed rules applying to the special premium for beef
producers, is to be interpreted as meaning that, where an agricultural
holding is transferred by way of ‘vorweggenommene Erbfolge’                2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(anticipated succession inter vivos) during the currency of the
undertakings given by an applicant for the 1991 special premium
for beef producers, entitlement to that premium does not pass to the
new owner, even though the latter has satisfied the conditions laid        (1) OJ C 131 of 26.4.1997.
down with regard to the keeping and fattening of the herd.
(1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.


title: Case T-25/13: Action brought on 21 January 2013 — Mäurer & Wirtz v OHIM — Sacra (4711 Aqua Mirabilis)

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/27

         Action brought on 21 January 2013 — Mäurer & Wirtz v OHIM — Sacra (4711 Aqua Mirabilis)
   (Case T-25/13)
   2013/C 71/41
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mäurer & Wirtz GmbH & Co. KG (Stolberg, Germany) (represented by: T. Schulte-Beckhausen, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sacra Srl (Venice, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 November 2012 in Case R 1601/2011-2;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the initial action and of the appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘4711 Aqua Mirabilis’ for goods in Class 3 — Community trade mark application No 8 988 181

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sacra Srl

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: word mark ‘Aqua Admirabilis’ for goods in Class 3

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case F-23/15: Action brought on 9 February 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/42

         Action brought on 9 February 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-23/15)
   (2015/C 127/60)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision imposing a disciplinary penalty on the applicant consisting of a reprimand.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 15 April 2014 of the appointing authority applying the disciplinary penalty of a reprimand to the applicant;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal.


title: Case C-200/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 June 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 110 TFEU — Internal taxation — Discriminatory taxation — Second-hand motor vehicles imported from other Member States — Determination of their taxable value — Depreciation rate)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/10

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 June 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-200/15) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 110 TFEU - Internal taxation - Discriminatory taxation - Second-hand motor vehicles imported from other Member States - Determination of their taxable value - Depreciation rate))
   (2016/C 305/14)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wasmeier and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, A. Cunha, A. Brigas Afonso and N. da Silva Vitorino, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, in applying, in order to determine the taxable value of second-hand vehicles imported into Portugal from another Member State, a system for calculating the depreciation on the vehicles which does not take account of the depreciation on the vehicles during their first year of use or of depreciation of more than 52 % in the case of vehicles which have been used for more than five years, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 110 TFEU;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.


title: Case T-548/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Spain v Commission (Customs Union — Imports of tuna products originating in Ecuador — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Request for waiver of recovery of import duties — Article 220(2)(b) and Article 236 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Notice to importers published in the Official Journal — Good faith — Application for the remission of import duties — Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-548/14) (1)

   ((Customs Union - Imports of tuna products originating in Ecuador - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Request for waiver of recovery of import duties - Article 220(2)(b) and Article 236 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Notice to importers published in the Official Journal - Good faith - Application for the remission of import duties - Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92))
   (2017/C 038/33)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, abogado del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Arenas, A. Caeiros, and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Article 2 of Decision C(2014) 3007 final of the Commission of 15 May 2014 finding that the remission of import duties is justified for a certain amount and that remission of import duties is not justified for another amount in a particular case (REM 03/2013).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               annuls Article 2 of Decision C(2014) 3007 final of the Commission of 15 May 2014 finding that the remission of import duties is justified for a certain amount and that remission of import duties is not justified for another amount in a particular case (REM 03/2013);

               2.

               orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.


C 366/24              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  18.12.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-92/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-185/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/43)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/47)
By order of 24 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-92/99: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Portuguese Republic.                        from the register of Case C-185/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                   ruling, from the Regeringsrätten): Riksskatteverket v X, Y and
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.                                          Z.
                                                                   (1) OJ No C 204 of 17.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-151/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/44)
By order of 28 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-151/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland.                                           Removal from the register of Case C-186/99 (1)
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                                 (1999/C 366/48)
                                                                   By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-186/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                   ruling, from the Regeringsrätten): Riksskatteverket v X.
       Removal from the register of Case C-31/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/45)                             (1) OJ No C 204 of 17.7.1999.
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-31/99: Commission of the
European Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-210/99 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/49)
       Removal from the register of Case C-32/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/46)                             By order of 30 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-210/99: Commission of the
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                   European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-32/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.


title: Case C-375/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 7 July 2016 — Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v Igor Butin

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 7 July 2016 — Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v Igor Butin
   (Case C-375/16)
   (2016/C 392/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach

      Defendant: Igor Butin

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 226(5) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax of 28 November 2006 (‘the VAT Directive’) (1) require the taxable person to indicate an address at which he carries on his economic activities?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:

                           a)

                           Is a letterbox address sufficient as an indication of address pursuant to Article 226(5) of the VAT Directive?

                           b)

                           Which address must a taxable person who operates an undertaking (in the Internet trade, for example) with no business premises indicate on an invoice?

               3.

               In the event that the formal invoicing requirements laid down in Article 226 of the VAT Directive are not met, must the taxable person automatically be allowed to deduct input tax where no tax evasion has been committed or the taxable person did not know, and could not have known, of the connection with fraud or, in that event, does the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations presuppose that the taxable person has done everything that could reasonably be required of him in order to verify the accuracy of the content of the invoice?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-148/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 March 2017 — Peek & Cloppenburg KG v Peek & Cloppenburg KG

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 March 2017 — Peek & Cloppenburg KG v Peek & Cloppenburg KG
   (Case C-148/17)
   (2017/C 231/05)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg

      Defendant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the fact that the invalidity or revocation of a national trade mark which forms the basis of a claim for the seniority of an EU trade mark and which has been surrendered or allowed to lapse may be established a posteriori only where the conditions of invalidity or revocation are present not only at the time when the trade mark was surrendered or allowed to lapse but also at the time of the judicial decision establishing its invalidity or revocation, compatible with Article 14 of Directive 2008/95/EC? (1)

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative:
               Does claiming seniority under Article 34(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2) have the effect that the right under the national trade mark lapses and can no longer be used in such a way as to maintain rights attached to it, or is the national trade mark preserved by virtue of EU law, even though it no longer exists in the register of the Member State concerned, with the result that it can and must continue to be used in such a way as to maintain the rights attached to it?

      (1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2004 in Case T-203/02: The Sunrider Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier word mark VITAFRUT — Application for Community word mark VITAFRUIT — Genuine use of the earlier trade mark — Similarity of products — Article 8(1)(b), Article 15 and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/19

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 July 2004
   in Case T-203/02: The Sunrider Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier word mark VITAFRUT - Application for Community word mark VITAFRUIT - Genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Similarity of products - Article 8(1)(b), Article 15 and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2004/C 239/39)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-203/02: The Sunrider Corp., established in Torrance, California (United States), represented by A. Kockläuner, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: S. Laitinen), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM being: Juan Espadafor Caba, resident in Granada (Spain) — action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2002 (Case R 1046/2000-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Juan Espadafor Caba and The Sunrider Corp — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; M. J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2004 in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 233 of 28.9.2002.


title: Case C-73/11 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2011 by Frucona Košice a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 7 December 2010 in Case T-11/07: Frucona Košice a.s. v European Commission, St. Nicolaus — trade a.s.

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/12

         Appeal brought on 18 February 2011 by Frucona Košice a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 7 December 2010 in Case T-11/07: Frucona Košice a.s. v European Commission, St. Nicolaus — trade a.s.
   (Case C-73/11 P)
   2011/C 130/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Frucona Košice a.s. (represented by: P. Lasok QC, J. Holmes, Barrister, B. Hartnett, Barrister, O. Geiss, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, St. Nicolaus — trade a.s.

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the General Court’s decision of 7 December 2010 in Case T-11/07 as it relates to the fourth and sixth pleas in the Appellant’s Application before the General Court;

               2.

               uphold those pleas as well-founded;

               3.

               refer the case back to the General Court so that it can decide upon the Appellant’s fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth pleas as they relate to the tax execution procedure; and

               4.

               order the Commission to pay the Appellant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following two pleas.
   1.   First plea: the General Court failed to assess the Commission’s application of the private creditor test against the correct legal standard.

   2.   Second plea: the General Court impermissibly sought to substitute its own reasoning for that of the Commission as regards the application of the private creditor test; and/or assessed the existing evidence relevant to that test in a manner that was manifestly incorrect, thereby distorting the clear sense of the evidence.


title: Case C-296/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 28 May 2013 — RWE AG v Freistaat Bayern

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 28 May 2013 — RWE AG v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-296/13)
   2013/C 274/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: RWE AG

      Defendant: Freistaat Bayern
   By decision of the Court of 25 July 2013 the case was removed from the register.


title: Case C-388/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 8 July 2013 — UPC Magyarország Kft. v Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 8 July 2013 — UPC Magyarország Kft. v Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság
   (Case C-388/13)
   2013/C 304/07
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: UPC Magyarország kft

      Defendant: Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 5 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (1) …, to be interpreted as precluding, in respect of misleading commercial practices within the meaning of Article 5(4) of that directive, a separate examination of the criteria of Article 5(2)(a) of the directive?

               2.

               May a communication of false information to a single consumer be regarded as a commercial practice within the meaning of that directive?

      (1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).


title: Case T-70/16 P: Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — Civil Service — EIB staff — Psychological harassment — Non-contractual liability — Errors of law — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/28

         Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-70/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - EIB staff - Psychological harassment - Non-contractual liability - Errors of law - Appeal manifestly unfounded))
   (2017/C 221/39)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: G. Nuvoli and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015, De Nicola v EIB (F-104/13, EU:F:2015:164) seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Carlo De Nicola shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/1

         (2007/C 129/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 117, 26.5.2007

   Past publications

      OJ C 96, 28.4.2007

      OJ C 95, 28.4.2007

      OJ C 82, 14.4.2007

      OJ C 69, 24.3.2007

      OJ C 56, 10.3.2007

      OJ C 42, 24.2.2007

   These texts are available on:

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


title: Case T-379/08: Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2012 — Mustang v OHIM — Decathlon (Wavy line) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a figurative Community mark representing a wavy line — Earlier national and international figurative trade marks representing a white wavy line on a black background — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2012 — Mustang v OHIM — Decathlon (Wavy line)
   (Case T-379/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a figurative Community mark representing a wavy line - Earlier national and international figurative trade marks representing a white wavy line on a black background - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2012/C 126/23
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG (Künzelsau, Germany) (represented by: A. Klett and K. Weimer, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Decathlon SA (Villeneuve d’Ascq, France) (represented by: P. Demoly, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2008 (Case R 859/2007-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Decathlon SA and Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case T-486/11: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Orange Polska v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Polish telecommunications market — Decision establishing an infringement of Article 102 TFEU — Conditions imposed by the incumbent operator for allowing paid access for new operators to the network and to wholesale broadband access services — Legitimate interest in finding that an infringement was committed — Fines — Obligation to state reasons — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Proportionality — Unlimited jurisdiction — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Orange Polska v Commission
   (Case T-486/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Polish telecommunications market - Decision establishing an infringement of Article 102 TFEU - Conditions imposed by the incumbent operator for allowing paid access for new operators to the network and to wholesale broadband access services - Legitimate interest in finding that an infringement was committed - Fines - Obligation to state reasons - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines))
   (2016/C 059/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Orange Polska S.A. formerly Telekomunikacja Polska S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented: initially by M. Modzelewska de Raad, P. Paśnik, S. Hautbourg, lawyers, A. Howard, Barrister, and C. Vajda QC, and subsequently by M. Modzelewska de Raad, P. Paśnik, S. Hautbourg, A. Howard and D. Beard QC)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by B. Gencarelli, K. Mojzesowicz and G. Koleva, and subsequently by K. Mojzesowicz, G. Koleva and M. Malferrari and finally by G. Koleva, M. Malferrari, É. Gippini Fournier and J. Szczodrowski, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji (Warsaw, Poland) (represented: P. Rosiak and K. Karasiewicz, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Competitive Telecommunications Association (represented: initially by P. Alexiadis and J. MacKenzie, and subsequently by J. MacKenzie, Solicitors)

      Re:

   Application for the full or partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 4378 final of 22 June 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU (Case COMP/39.525 — Telekomunikacja Polska) and for a reduction of the fine imposed by the Commission in Article 2 of that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Orange Polska S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji and the European Competitive Telecommunications Association to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.


title: Case F-79/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 December 2010 — Dubus v Commission

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/69

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 December 2010 — Dubus v Commission
   (Case F-79/10) (1)

   ()
   2011/C 30/140
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010, p. 66.


title: Case F-50/08: Action brought on 19 May 2008 — Bartha v Commission

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/73

         Action brought on 19 May 2008 — Bartha v Commission
   (Case F-50/08)
   (2008/C 209/134)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Parties

      Applicant: Gábor Bartha (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Homoki, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision of EPSO not to include the applicant's name in the reserve list of successful candidates in competition EPSO/AD/56/06.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the selection board of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 19 November 2007 concerning the result of the competition ‘EPSO/AD/56/06 Administrators (AD5) of Hungarian citizenship’;

               —

               Annul the decision of the EPSO selection board of 23 January 2008 rejecting the complaint concerning the result of the competition;

               —

               Annul the decision of the EPSO selection board of 31 March 2008 confirming the rejection of the complaint concerning the result of the competition;

               —

               Order the Defendant to make good the damage arising from the decisions whose annulment is sought;

               —

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


17.7.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 204/37
        Removal from the register of Case C-27/97 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-7/99 P (1)
                          (1999/C 204/86)                                                     (1999/C 204/90)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-27/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                       the register of Case C-7/99 P: Franco Campoli v Commission
from the Tribunale di Genova): Ligure Piemontese SpA (Società
                                                                       of the European Communities.
d’Intermediazione Mobiliare) v Amministrazione delle Finanze
dello Stato.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
( 1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
        Removal from the register of Case C-28/97 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-326/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/87)                                                     (1999/C 204/91)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               By order of 6 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-28/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
from the Tribunale di Genova): SO.ME.FI Srl v Amministra-              the register of Case C-326/98: Commission of the European
zione delle Finanze dello Stato.                                       Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.                                               (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
        Removal from the register of Case C-29/97 (1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-320/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/88)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/92)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-29/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling       By order of 7 May 1999 the President of the Third Chamber
from the Tribunale di Genova): Società Anonima Immobiliare             of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
Allessandro Srl (SAIA) v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello           ordered the removal from the register of Case C-320/98:
Stato.                                                                 Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of
                                                                       Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
        Removal from the register of Case C-30/97 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/89)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-73/98 (1)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                                      (1999/C 204/93)
the register of Case C-30/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): SVIN Servizi SpA v               By order of 10 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.                             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       the register of Case C-73/98: Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 151 of 16.5.1998.


               29.5.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/5

         Action brought on 1 April 2004 by KM Europa Metal AG, Tréfimétaux S.A. and Europa Metalli S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-127/04)
   (2004/C 146/07)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 April 2004 by KM Europa Metal AG, Osnabruck (Germany), Tréfimétaux S.A., Courbevoie Cedex (France), and Europa Metalli S.p.A., Florence (Italy), represented by M. Siragusa, A. Winckler, G. Cesare Rizza, T. Graf and M. Piergiovanni, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicants by the decision of the Commission of the European Communities adopted on 16 December 2003 in Case COMP/E-l/38.240

               —

               order the Commission to pay the Applicants' legal fees and expenses as well as the costs incurred by the Applicants in providing a bank guarantee in lieu of payment of KME's Fine pending judgment

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   By the contested decision the Commission found that the applicants, among others, infringed Articles 81 EC and 53(1) EEA by participating in a complex of agreements and concerted practices which affected the EEA market for industrial copper tubes supplied in level wound coils. On these grounds, the Commission imposed a fine of 18.990.000 Euros on the applicants, jointly and severally.
   The applicants do not contest the Decision's findings with respect to their infringement of the EC and EEA competition rules, but contend that the Commission committed a number of factual and legal errors in calculating the amount of the fine. Firstly, they submit that in establishing the basic amount of the fine and in its calculation of the duration element, the Commission violated the principles of proportionality and equal treatment by not taking the statistically insignificant market impact of the agreements in question and the variations in the cartel's activities into account.
   The applicants further claim that in the context of its assessment of the gravity of the infringement, the Commission grossly overstated the economic impact of the agreements in question, by taking the size of the market for the semi-finished products (copper industrial tubes) into account rather than the market for conversion services.
   The applicants also contend that the Commission wrongly failed to take several attenuating circumstances into account, namely: the limited implementation of the agreements in question by the applicants, their immediate and voluntary termination of the infringement; the structural crisis of the industrial tube industry; and the applicants' cooperation with the Commission. They claim that the 30 % fine reduction they were granted was based on erroneous factual premises, and was inconsistent with the Commission's practice and the case law. They further submit that the Commission unlawfully discriminated between them and another company, by applying certain attenuating circumstance only to the latter and by according a much more lenient treatment to it without any objective reason.


title: Case T-145/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Romania v Commission (EAGGF and EAFRD — Area-related measures — Expenditure excluded from financing — Flat-rate financial corrections — Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/45

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Romania v Commission
   (Case T-145/15) (1)

   ((EAGGF and EAFRD - Area-related measures - Expenditure excluded from financing - Flat-rate financial corrections - Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 104/63)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Romania (represented initially by: R.-H Radu, V. Angelescu, R. Mangu, D. Bulancea, N. Horumbă, E. Mierlea and T. Crainic, and subsequently by: R. Radu, V. Angelescu, R. Mangu, N. Horumbă, E. Mierlea and T. Crainic, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it concerns Romania;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Romania.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.


title: Case C-102/01: Action brought on 1 March 2001 by Italian Republic against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 118/20                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.4.2001
Action brought on 1 March 2001 by Italian Republic                       3.    The contested decision is also invalid on the following
    against Commission of the European Communities                             grounds:
                                                                               failure to define the relevant market; misuse of powers
                          (Case C-102/01)                                      by misrepresentation of the facts; infringement of the
                                                                               directive on postal services; infringement and erroneous
                                                                               application of Articles 82 and 86 of the Treaty; misuse of
                         (2001/C 118/32)                                       powers in that the decision is general and indeterminate.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                (1) Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of
Communities on 1 March 2001 by the Italian Republic,                         the internal market of Community postal services and the
represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by                  improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14).
Ivo M. Braguglia and Francesca Quadri, avvocati dello Stato.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Commission of the European
      Communities of 21 December 2000, notified to the
      Italian Government on 22 December 2000;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Action brought on 2 March 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                                                                                of Germany
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-103/01)
1.    The Italian Government claims that the Commission
      committed a manifest error when choosing the proper
      legal basis for assessing whether the national rules at issue
      were compatible with Community law and that that                                           (2001/C 118/33)
      erroneous legal basis has led in the present case to a
      manifest breach of essential procedural requirements and
      ‘détournement de procédure’ (abuse of process), inasmuch           An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
      as a proceeding pursuant to Article 86(3) of the Treaty            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
      was instituted and a decision adopted, instead of infringe-        ties on 2 March 2001 by the Commission of the European
      ment proceedings under Article 226 of the Treaty for               Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
      failure to implement correctly Directive 97/76/EC (1) on           Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
      postal services.                                                   the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                         Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
      By acting in that way, the Commission has also infringed
      Article 86(3) of the Treaty, which is not applicable in the
      present case, as well as Article 226 of the Treaty for             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      failure to apply the latter.
                                                                         (1) declare that, by including in the legislation applicable
      The decision does not contain the least statement of                     to individual Länder certain additional requirements
      reasons which led the Commission to follow the pro-                      concerning personal protective equipment for fire brig-
      cedure under Article 86, so that it is vitiated on the                   ades which corresponds to the requirements of Directive
      ground of inadequate statement of reasons.                               89/686/EEC (1) and bears the EC mark, the Federal
                                                                               Republic of Germany has infringed Articles 1 and 4 of
                                                                               that directive;
2.    The decision is vitiated for breach of the rights of the
      defence in that the final decision is vitiated with regard to
      the letter of formal notice.                                       (2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.


title: Case T-216/13: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — Telefónica v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Portuguese and Spanish telecommunications markets — Non-competition clause in relation to the Iberian market inserted into the agreement for the acquisition by Telefónica of the share held by Portugal Telecom in the Brazilian mobile operator Vivo — Statutory safeguard ‘to the extent permitted by law’ — Infringement by object — Ancillary restriction — Autonomy of the applicant’s conduct — Potential competition — Infringement by effects — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Request for the hearing of witnesses)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — Telefónica v Commission
   (Case T-216/13) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Portuguese and Spanish telecommunications markets - Non-competition clause in relation to the Iberian market inserted into the agreement for the acquisition by Telefónica of the share held by Portugal Telecom in the Brazilian mobile operator Vivo - Statutory safeguard ‘to the extent permitted by law’ - Infringement by object - Ancillary restriction - Autonomy of the applicant’s conduct - Potential competition - Infringement by effects - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Request for the hearing of witnesses))
   (2016/C 287/22)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Telefónica, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Folguera Crespo, P. Vidal Martínez and E. Peinado Iríbar, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Subject matter

   Application for, primarily, annulment of Commission Decision C (2013) 306 final of 23 January 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case COMP/39.839 — Telefónica/Portugal Telecom) and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside Article 2 of Commission Decision C (2013) 306 final of 23 January 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case COMP/39.839 — Telefónica/Portugal Telecom) in so far as it fixes the amount of the fine imposed on Telefónica, SA at EUR 66 894 000, to the extent that that amount was fixed on the basis of the value of the sales taken into account by the European Commission;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders Telefónica to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by the Commission, and orders the Commission to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Telefónica.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.


title: Case T-96/17: Order of the General Court of 5 May 2017 — King.com v EUIPO — TeamLava (Animated icons)

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/37

         Order of the General Court of 5 May 2017 — King.com v EUIPO — TeamLava (Animated icons)
   (Case T-96/17) (1)

   (2017/C 221/52)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.


title: Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Société Ciments Français SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-39/95)

text:
No C 119/14            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                                13 . 5 . 95
     2. Incorrect analysis of the applicant's market                               with the fact that the Commission chose to
          conduct: in forming the view that the applicant was                      incriminate only a selection of European cement
          involved in an agreement to limit transhipments of                       producers. The applicant also takes the view that
          cement between France and Germany, the                                   the Commission could not, without contradicting
          Commission was guilty of a manifest error in                             itself, define the geographical reference market as
          interpretation of the facts.                                              being both local and European at the same time.
                                                                         II. Manifest error of assessment: the applicant submits
                                                                              that the complaints upheld against it — regarded by the
                                                                              Commission as the application of a general agreement
                                                                              — are either non-existent or without relation to the
Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Société Ciments
                                                                              applicant and, in any event, unconnected to a general
Français SA against the Commission of the European
                            Communities                                       agreement. The applicant also takes the view that the
                                                                              evidence which ostensibly establishes the existence of a
                         (Case T-39/95 )                                      general agreement to 'respect home markets' is
                           ( 95/C 119/34 )                                    manifestly inadequate.
                 (Language of the case: Frencb)                         III. Breach of the principles of non-discrimination and
                                                                              proportionality, along with breach of the principles of
An action against the Commission of the European                              sound administration and the protection of legitimate
Communities was brought before the Court of First                             expectations.
Instance of the European Communities on 17 February
1995 by Société Ciments Français SA, having its registered              IV. In the alternative, the applicant submits that the fines
office in Paris ( France ), represented by Antoine Winckler, of               imposed on it should be reduced substantially. It takes
the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                   the view that the Commission :
the Chambers of Elvinger & Hoss, 15 Côte d'Eich.
                                                                              1 , committed manifest errors in its calculation;
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                              2 , failed properly to take account of the gravity of the
— annul the Commission decision of 30 November                                     alleged infringements and on that ground
     1994,                                                                         committed a serious breach of the principle of
                                                                                proportionality;
— in the alternative, reduce the fines imposed,
                                                                              3 , chose an incorrect relevant market as the basis for
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                          calculating the fine .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
In support of its action, the applicant relies on the following
pleas in law:
                                                                        Action brought on 18 February 1995 by Société Lafarge
  I.  Procédural defects :                                                   Coppée against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
      1 . Breach of the right to a fair hearing. The applicant
                                                                                (Case T-43/95 )
           submits that there has been a failure to comply with
           the principle that all parties should be heard in                                          ( 95/C 119/35 )
           administrative proceedings: first, on the ground of
           non-communication          or   absence     of  details                        (Language of tbe case: French)
           connecting individuals to certain fundamental
           complaints; second, on the ground that there was
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
           no full access to the file documents; and, finally, by
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
           reason of the restrictions imposed on the
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 18 February
           applicant's opportunity to set out its view
                                                                        1 995 by Société Lafarge Coppée, having its registered office
           regarding the complaints finally upheld against
           it.
                                                                        in Paris ( France ), represented by Henry Lesguillons, of the
                                                                        Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
      2 . The Advisory Committee was not called to                      Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
           comment on the exact amount of the fines
           envisaged by the Commission.                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
      3 . Failure to state reasons. The applicant points out in        — annul the Commission Decision of 30 November 1994
           this regard that the theory of a 'single and                     in its entirety, or at least Articles 1 , 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) and 3 ( 3 ) ( a ),
           continuous agreement' involving practically the                  4 ( 1 ), 4 ( 2 ), 4 ( 3 ) ( a ), 4 (4 ) (e ) and 4 (4 ) ( f), 6 and 7
           entire European cement industry is directly at odds              thereof,


title: Case T-547/13: Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2015 — Rosian Express v OHIM (Shape of a games box) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a games box — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2015 — Rosian Express v OHIM (Shape of a games box)
   (Case T-547/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a games box - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 398/46)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Rosian Express SRL (Medias, Romania) (represented by: E. Grecu and A. Tigau, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar and A. Geavela, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 July 2013 (case R 797/2013-5), relating to an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a games box as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Rosian Express SRL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 July 2001 in Case C-341/00 P: Conseil national des professions de l'automobile (CNPA) v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 — Appeal clearly unfounded and clearly inadmissible)

text:
10.11.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 317/9
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT
                         (Fourth Chamber)                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 5 July 2001
                          of 21 June 2001
                                                                           in Case C-341/00 P: Conseil national des professions de
in Case C-330/00 P: Alsace International Car Services S. à                 l’automobile (CNPA) v Commission of the European
                 r. l. v European Parliament (1)                                                      Communities (1)
                                                                           (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 — Appeal
(Appeal — Public contracts for services — Passenger trans-                           clearly unfounded and clearly inadmissible)
port by chauffeur-driven vehicles for the European Parlia-
ment in Strasbourg — Call for tenders — Compliance with
national law — Rejection of a tender — Appeal partly                                                  (2001/C 317/16)
      clearly inadmissible and partly clearly unfounded)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                           (2001/C 317/15)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     (Language of the case: French)                                            in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-341/00 P: Conseil national des professions de
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     l’automobile (CNPA), established in Suresnes (France), Fédér-
                    in the European Court Reports)                         ation nationale des distributeurs, loueurs et réparateurs de
                                                                           matériels de bâtiments-travaux publics et de manutention
                                                                           (DLR), established in Joinville-le-Pont (France), Auto Contrô-
In Case C-330/00 P: Alsace International Car Services S. à r. l.           le 31 SA, established in Toulouse (France), Yam 31 SARL,
(AICS), established in Strasbourg (France), represented by                 established in Toulouse, Roux SA, established in Saint-Denis-
J.-C. Fourgoux, avocat — appeal against the judgment of the                de-Saintonge (France), Marc Foucher-Creteau, residing in Paris
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth                 (France), Verdier distribution SARL, established in Juvignac
Chamber) of 6 July 2000 in Case T-139/99 AICS v Parliament                 (France), represented by C. Bourgeon, avocat, — appeal against
[1998] ECR II-2849, claiming that that judgment should be                  the order of the Court of First Instance of the European
set aside and that the forms of order sought by the applicant              Communities (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2000 in Case
at first instance should be granted, the other party to the                T-45/00 Conseil national des professions de l’automobile and Others
proceedings being the European Parliament (Agents: O. Caisou-              v Commission [2000] ECR II-2927, seeking to have that order
Rousseau and A. Neergard) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),                    set aside, the other party to the proceedings being Commission
composed of A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,                       of the European Communities (Agent: W. Wils) — the Court
D.A.O. Edward and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges;                  (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
Advocate General: J. Mischo; Registrar: R. Grass, has made an              Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), P. Jann.
order on 21 June 2001, in which it:                                        and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo; Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                           Registrar, has given an order on 5 July 2001, the operative
                                                                           part of which is as follows:
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                           1.    The appeal is dismissed.
2.    Orders Alsace International Car Services S. à r. l. (AICS) to
      pay the costs.                                                       2.    There is no need to decide on the application to intervene.
                                                                           3.    The Conseil national des professions de l’automobile (CNPA),
(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                                      the Fédération nationale des distributeurs, loueurs et réparateurs
                                                                                de matériels de bâtiments-travaux publics et de manutention
                                                                                (DLR), Auto Contrôle 31 SA, Yam 31 SARL, Roux SA,
                                                                                Marc Foucher-Creteau and Verdier distribution SARL are
                                                                                ordered jointly and severally to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 317/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.11.2001
4.   The Confédération belge du commerce et de la réparation                  (f)  the preparation of Medical Reports
     automobile et des secteurs connexes ASBL (Federauto) is ordered
     to bear its own costs.                                                        (i)   following the examinations referred to in (e)
                                                                                and
                                                                                (ii) based on medical notes but without conducting
(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.                                                               a medical examination,
                                                                              (g)  medical examinations conducted with a view to the
                                                                                preparation of expert Medical Reports regarding
                                                                                professional medical negligence for individuals con-
                                                                                templating litigation, and
                                                                              (h) the preparation of Medical Reports
                                                                                (i)   following the examinations referred to in (g)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties                                 and
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that
court of 6 June 2001, in the case of 1) Dr Peter L.                                (ii) based on medical notes but without conducting
d’Ambrumenil, 2) Dispute Resolution Services Ltd against                                 a medical examination?
           Commissioners of Customs and Excise
                                                                        (1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.
                         (Case C-307/01)
                         (2001/C 317/17)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties               beamt (Austria) by order of 11 July 2001 in the case of
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, of 6 June 2001, which was            (1) Siemens AG Österreich; (2) ARGE Telekom & Partner
received at the Court Registry on 6 August 2001, for a                  v Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversiche-
preliminary ruling in the case of 1) Dr Peter L. d’Ambrumenil,            rungsträger; intervening party: EDS/ORGA consortium
2) Dispute Resolution Services Ltd against Commissioners of
Customs and Excise, on the following questions:                                                 (Case C-314/01)
1.   Is article 13A(1)(c) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May                                 (2001/C 317/18)
     1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
     States relating to turnover taxes to be interpreted as             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     covering the following activities when performed in the            European Communities by order of 11 July 2001 by the
     exercise of the medical profession as defined by the               Bundesvergabeamt (Austrian Federal Procurement Office),
     Member State:                                                      which was received at the Court Registry on 9 August 2001,
                                                                        for a preliminary ruling in the case of (1) Siemens AG
                                                                        Österreich; (2) ARGE Telekom & Partner v Hauptverband der
     (a)   conducting medical examinations of individuals for           österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger; intervening party:
           employers or insurance companies.                            EDS/ORGA consortium, on the following questions:
     (b) the taking of blood or other bodily samples to test            1.    Is Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) of 21 December
           for the presence of viruses, infections or other                   1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
           diseases on behalf of employers or insurers,                       administrative provisions relating to the application of
                                                                              review procedures to the award of public supply and
                                                                              public works contracts, and in particular Article 2(1)(b)
     (c)   certification of medical fitness, for example, as to               thereof, if necessary in conjunction with Article 2(7)
           fitness to travel,                                                 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the legal effect
                                                                              of a decision taken by a national review body within the
     (d) giving certificates as to a person’s medical condition               meaning of Article 2(8) of Directive 89/665 relating to
           for purposes such as entitlement to a War Pension,                 the setting aside of a contracting authority’s decision not
                                                                              to cancel a contract award procedure is that if national
                                                                              law does not provide any basis for the effective and
     (e)   medical examinations conducted with a view to the                  compulsory enforcement of the review body’s decision
           preparation of expert Medical Reports regarding                    against the contracting authority, the contract award
           issues of liability and the quantification of damages              procedure is automatically terminated by the national
           for individuals contemplating personal injury liti-                review body’s decision, without the need for any further
           gation,                                                            act by the contracting authority?


title: Case C-483/03: Action brought on 19 November 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
10.1.2004             EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 7/27
Action brought on 19 November 2003 by the Com-                             Commission of the European Communities, represented by
   mission of the European Communities against Ireland                     W. Wils, acting as agent, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg.
                        (Case C-482/03)
                          (2004/C 7/46)                                    The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                        Directives 2001/12/EC amending Council Directive 91/
Justice of the European Communities on 19 November 2003                          440/EEC on the development of the Community’s rail-
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented                       ways (1), 2001/13/EC amending Council Directive 95/18/
by W. Wils, acting as agent, with an address for service in                      C on the licensing of railway undertakings (2) and 2001/
Luxembourg.                                                                      14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity
                                                                                and the levying of charges for the use of railway
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                      infrastructure and safety certification (3), of the European
                                                                                Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001, or in
                                                                                any event by failing to notify those provisions to it, the
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under these Directives;
      Directives 2001/12/EC amending Council Directive 91/
      440/EEC on the development of the Community’s rail-
      ways (1), 2001/13/EC amending Council Directive 95/18/               2.    order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
      C on the licensing of railway undertakings (2) and 2001/                   Ireland to pay the costs.
      14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity
      and the levying of charges for the use of railway
      infrastructure and safety certification (3), of the European
      Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001, or in
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
      any event by failing to communicate them to the
      Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under these Directives;
                                                                           The period within which the Directives had to be transposed
2.    order Ireland to pay the costs.                                      expired on 15 March 2003.
                                                                           (1) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            (2) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 26.
                                                                           (3) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 29.
The period within which the Directives had to be transposed
expired on 15 March 2003.
(1) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 26.
(3) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 29.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-62/02 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/48)
Action brought on 19 November 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the United
      Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                        By order of 8 September 2003 the President of the Second
                                                                           Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                        (Case C-483/03)                                    ordered the removal from the register of Case C-62/02:
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom
                          (2004/C 7/47)                                    of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 19 November 2003 by the