title: Case T-152/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 September 2009 — Lange Uhren v OHIM (Geometric shapes on a watch-face) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark — Geometric shapes on a watch-face — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 September 2009 — Lange Uhren v OHIM (Geometric shapes on a watch-face)
   (Case T-152/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark - Geometric shapes on a watch-face - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2009/C 256/43
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Lange Uhren GmbH (Glashütte, Germany) (represented by: M. Schaeffer, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2007 (Case R 1176/2005-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing geometric shapes on a watch-face.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Lange Uhren GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case T-345/06: Action brought on 4 December 2006 — Complejo Agricola v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/18

         Action brought on 4 December 2006 — Complejo Agricola v Commission
   (Case T-345/06)
   (2007/C 20/25)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Complejo Agrícola (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: D.A. Menéndez Menéndez and Da. G. Yanguas Montero)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Grant the present application;

               —

               Admit and examine the documentary evidence requested;

               —

               Annul in part Article 1 in connection with Annex 1 of the decision of the European Commission of 19 July 2006, in so far as it concerns the declaration of Acebuchales as a SCI, and restore fully the exercise of the Complejo Agricola's ownership rights over that part of the farm which does not meet the environmental values required to be declared a SCI;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by Complejo Agrícola.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This action is brought against the Commission decision of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region, (1) in so far as it declares as a site of Community importance (SCI) ES6120015 'Acebuchales de la Campiña sur de Cádiz' given that the applicant is the owner of a farm covered by that SCI.
   In support of its claims, the applicant submits that:

               —

               the Commission has exceeded its powers in designating as a SCI 'Acebuchales de la Campiña sur de Cádiz', which affects the applicant's farm, by erring in its application of the criteria laid down in Annexes I, II and III to Directive 92/43/EEC. In addition, the Comission's misapplication of the criteria laid down in Annex III to Directive 92/43/EEC has led to the designation as a SCI area of a large part of the land belonging to the applicant which is lacking in environmental value, thereby constituting a breach of the principles of proportionality and lawfulness;

               —

               the designation has led to an unjustified and disproportionate limitation of the powers inherent in the applicant's ownership rights in connection with areas of the farm affected by the SCI 'Acebuchales de la Campiña sur de Cádiz' which are lacking of environmental value;

               —

               the applicant did not have the opportunity to participate in the procedure for the declaration of 'Acebuchales de la Campiña sur de Cádiz' as a SCI, which amounts to an infringement of the principles of the right to be heard and of legal certainty.

      (1)  OJ L 259, 21.9.2006, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2004 in Case C36/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn (Freedom to provide services — Free movement of goods — Restrictions — Public policy — Human dignity — Protection of fundamental values laid down in the national constitution — ‘Playing at killing’)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 14 October 2004
   in Case C36/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Free movement of goods - Restrictions - Public policy - Human dignity - Protection of fundamental values laid down in the national constitution - ‘Playing at killing’)
   (2004/C 300/05)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-36/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany), made by decision of 24 October 2001, received at the Court on 12 February 2002, in the proceedings between Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH and Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Community law does not preclude an economic activity consisting of the commercial exploitation of games simulating acts of homicide from being made subject to a national prohibition measure adopted on grounds of protecting public policy by reason of the fact that that activity is an affront to human dignity.

      (1)   OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 27 June 1995 in Case T-186/94, Guérin Automobiles v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition P Complaint P Notification under Article 6 of Regulation No 99/63/EEC P Action for failure to act P Action for annulment)

text:
No C 208/20           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       12 . 8 . 95
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Commission Decision 93/363/EEC of 9 June                     1993
                       of 14 June 1995                              concerning applications for refund of anti-dumping duties
                                                                    collected on imports of certain compact disc players
in Case T-61/92 : Henri de Compte v. European                       originating in Japan (Amroh BV, PIA HiFi , MPI
                         Parliament (M                              Electronic ( 2 ), the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ),
(Officials — Action for annulment — Decision of the                 composed of J. Biancarelli, President of the Chamber, and
President of the European Parliament granting a qualified           C. P. Briët and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
discharge to the accounting officers in respect of the              has given a judgment on 27 June 1995 in which it:
performance oftheir duties — Suspension ofpayment ofthe
              accounting officer's credit balance)                  1 . dismisses the application;
                         ( 95/C 208/41 )
                                                                    2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                 (Language of the case: French)                     (M OJ No C 282 , 20 . 10 . 1993 .
                                                                    ( 2 ) OJ No L 150 , 22 . 6 . 1993 , p . 44 .
In Case T-61/92 : Henri de Compte, a former official of the
European Parliament, residing at Chatel-Saint-Germain
( France ), represented by Edmond Lebrun and Eric Boigelot,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
Fort Rheinsheim, v. European Parliament ( Agents: Francois           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Vainker and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application, first, for the                                  of 27 June 1995
annulment of the decision of the President of the European          in Case T- 1 86/94 , Guérin Automobiles v. Commission of
Parliament of 19 December 1991 granting a discharge to the                           the European Communities ( J )
accounting officers in respect of the performance of their
duties in relation to the 1982 financial year, inasmuch as it       (Competition — Complaint — Notification under Article 6
contains a reservation and continues to suspend payment of          ofRegulation No 99/63/EEC — Action for failure to act —
the credit balance of the guarantee account opened in the                                 Action for annulment)
name of the applicant, and , second, for an order requiring                                     ( 95/C 208/43 )
the Parliament to pay that credit balance, together with
default interest — the Court of First Instance ( Second                              (Language of the case: French)
Chamber ), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and
D. P. M. Barrington and A. Saggio , Judges; B. Pastor,              In Case T-l 86/94 Guérin Automobiles, of Alençon ( France ),
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on           represented by Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris and
14 June 1995 , in which it:                                         Brussels Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                    the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Beatrix de Bourbon
1 . dismisses the action;
                                                                    v. Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                    Francisco Enrique Gonzalez-Diaz and Géraud de Bergues )
2 . orders the parties to pay their own costs.                      — Application for a declaration under Article 1 75 of the EC
                                                                    Treaty that the Commission has failed to address to the
(M OJ No C 258 , 7. 10 . 1992 .                                     applicant a decision on the complaint lodged by it under
                                                                    Article 3 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17 of the Council of
                                                                    6 February 1962 , the first regulation implementing
                                                                    Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty ( 2 ), and in the alternative the
                                                                    annulment of the Commission's letters of 21 January 1993
                                                                    and 4 February 1994 — the Court of First Instance (Third
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Chamber, extended composition ), composed of: J.
                       of 27 June 1995                              Biancarelli, President, R. Schintgen, C. P. Briët, C. W.
in Case T-169/94 Pia HiFi Vertriebs GmbH v. Commission              Bellamy and J. Azizi, Judges, Registrar: H. Jung, has given a
                                                                    judgment on 27 June 1995 , in which it:
               of the European Communities (')
(Anti-dumping duties — Application for the annulment ofa            1 . declares that it is not necessary to give a ruling on the
        decision on applications for reimbursement)                       application in so far as it is based on Article 1 75 of the
                         ( 95/C 208/42 )                                  Treaty;
                                                                    2 . dismisses the remainder of the application as
                (Language of the case: German)                            inadmissible;
In Case T-169/94 Pia HiFi Vertriebs GmbH, having its                3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
registered office in Weiterstadt ( Germany ), represented by
F. Michael Boemke, of the Hamburg Bar, with an address              ( l ) OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7. 1994, p. 15 .
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,           ( 2 ) OJ No 13 , 21 . 2 . 1962 , p. 204 . English Special Edition
11 Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the European                              1959—1962 , p. 87 .
Communities ( Agents : Eric White and Claus-Michael
Happe, then Jörn Sack) — application for the annulment of


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 October 2004 in Case C-379/03 P: Rafael Pérez Escolar v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — State aid — Action for declaration of failure to act — Locus standi — Admissibility of the action)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/10

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 1 October 2004
   in Case C-379/03 P: Rafael Pérez Escolar v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Action for declaration of failure to act - Locus standi - Admissibility of the action)
   (2005/C 19/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-379/03 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 10 September 2003, Rafael Pérez Escolar (Agent: F. Moreno Pardo), the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. L. Buendía Sierra) – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and J. Klucka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 1 October 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Pérez Escolar shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251 of 18.10.2003.


title: Case C-290/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság by order of that court of  3 March 2005  in Ákos Nádasdi v Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Észak-Alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság by order of that court of 3 March 2005 in Ákos Nádasdi v Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Észak-Alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága
   (Case C-290/05)
   (2005/C 296/19)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság (Hungary) of 3 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 19 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Ákos Nádasdi and Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Észak-Alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága on the following questions:

               1.

               Does the first paragraph of Article 90 EC allow Member States to maintain in force a duty on used motor vehicles from other Member States, when that duty is wholly independent of the value of the vehicle and the amount is determined solely on the basis of the technical characteristics of the vehicle (engine type, engine capacity) and its environmental classification?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is Law No CX of 2003 on registration duty, which is applicable in this case, compatible, as regards imported used motor vehicles, with the first paragraph of Article 90 EC when the registration duty is not payable on motor vehicles which were placed in circulation in Hungary before the law in question entered into force?


title: Case C-14/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 11 January 2016 — Euro Park Service, having assumed the rights and obligations of Cairnbulg Nanteuil v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 11 January 2016 — Euro Park Service, having assumed the rights and obligations of Cairnbulg Nanteuil v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics
   (Case C-14/16)
   (2016/C 106/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Euro Park Service, having assumed the rights and obligations of Cairnbulg Nanteuil

      Respondent: Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

      Questions referred

               1.

               When national legislation of a Member State makes use, in domestic law, of the option under Article 11(1) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990, as amended, on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, (1) is there scope for the measures adopted for the implementation of that option to be reviewed in the light of primary EU law?

               2.

               If so, must the provisions of Article 43 of the Treaty establishing the European Union, now Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding national legislation, aimed at preventing tax evasion or avoidance, from imposing a condition that the use of the common system of taxation applicable to mergers and transactions treated as such is to be subject to a process of prior approval only as regards transfers made to foreign legal persons, but not transfers made to legal persons incorporated under national law?

      (1)  OJ 1990 L 225, p. 1.


title: Case T-557/14: Action brought on 28 July 2014  — BrandGroup v OHIM — Brauerei S. Riegele, Inh. Riegele (SPEZOOMIX)

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/25

         Action brought on 28 July 2014 — BrandGroup v OHIM — Brauerei S. Riegele, Inh. Riegele (SPEZOOMIX)
   (Case T-557/14)
   2014/C 339/30
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: BrandGroup GmbH (Bechtsrieth, Germany) (represented by: T. Raible, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brauerei S. Riegele, Inh. Riegele KG (Augsburg, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 May 2014 in Case R 941/2013-1;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and the Brauerei S. Riegele, Inh. Riegele KG to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: BrandGroup GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SPEZOOMIX’ for goods in Classes 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 9 9 13  617

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Brauerei S. Riegele, Inh. Riegele KG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International and Community word marks ‘Spezi’, international and Community figurative marks containing the word ‘Spezi’, and the national word mark ‘Ein Spezi muß dabei sein’ for goods in Class 32

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and rejection in its entirety of the mark applied for

      Plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 78(5) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case F-65/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 February 2014 — Armani v Commission (Civil Service — Remuneration Annulment of the decision of the Commission not to grant the applicant family allowance in respect of his wife’s son of a previous marriage — Family allowances — Entitlement to the dependent child allowance — Dependent child — Child of the applicant’s wife)

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/25

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 February 2014 — Armani v Commission
   (Case F-65/12) (1)

   (Civil Service - Remuneration Annulment of the decision of the Commission not to grant the applicant family allowance in respect of his wife’s son of a previous marriage - Family allowances - Entitlement to the dependent child allowance - Dependent child - Child of the applicant’s wife)
   2014/C 85/41
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Enrico Maria Armani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and V. Joris, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of the decision of the Commission not to grant the applicant family allowance in respect of his wife’s son of a previous marriage.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 17 August 2011, by which the European Commission refused to recognise Mr Armani’s entitlement to a dependent child allowance in respect of his wife’s child;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Armani.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012, p. 34.


title: Case F-86/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 March 2011 — Dubus v Parliament

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/27

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 March 2011 — Dubus v Parliament
   (Case F-86/10) (1)

   2011/C 130/55
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.10, p. 49.


title: Action brought on 10 November 1997 by Peter Cain against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-289/97)

text:
24.1.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 26/7
Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder, Bernd Kloke              2. The applicant is ordered to pay all the costs of the
and, at the hearing, Michael Schütte) and by MTW                       application for interim relief.
Schiffswerft GmbH, (formerly Meerestechnik Werft), with
its registered office at Wismar (Germany), represented by
Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch, Rechtsanwälte,             3. Each party is to bear its own costs in respect of the
Hamburg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                  application for a declaration of failure to act.
the chambers of FrancËois Turk, 13B Avenue Guillaume Ð
application for taxation of the costs to be paid by the
                                                                   (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
applicants to the intervener, MTW Schiffswerft GmbH,
following the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
22 October 1996 in Case T-266/94 Skibsvñrftsforeningen
a.O. v. Commission [1996] ECR II-1399 Ð the Court of
First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of A. Saggio, President, B. Vesterdorf, C. W.
Bellamy, R. M. Moura Ramos and J. Pirrung, Judges; H.
Jung, Registrar, made an order on 24 November 1997, the            Action brought on 10 November 1997 by Peter Cain
operative part of which is as follows:                                against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-289/97)
The total amount of costs to be paid by the applicants to                                   (98/C 26/14)
the intervener MTW Schiffswerft GmbH is fixed at
DM 125 000.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( ) OJ C 254, 10.9.1994.
 1
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 10 November
                                                                   1997 by Peter Cain, residing at Trier (Federal Republic of
                                                                   Germany), represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry
                                                                   Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                   the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                    of 26 November 1997                            Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SaÁrl, 30
                                                                   Rue de Cessange.
in Case T-39/97: T. Port GmbH & Co v. Commission of
                the European Communities (1)
(Agriculture Ð Common organization of the markets Ð                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Bananas Ð Request for the issue of additional import
licences Ð Action for declaration of failure to act Ð
      Procedure by default Ð No need to adjudicate)                Ð annul the decision of 12 March 1997 appointing the
                                                                       applicant, with effect from 1 February 1997, to grade
                         (98/C 26/13)
                                                                       LA 7, step 3 within the translators' career bracket,
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
In Case T-39/97: T. Port GmbH & Co, established in
Hamburg (Germany), represented by Gert Meier,                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden, 24 Rue
Marie-Adelaïde, against Commission of the European                 By decision of 26 February 1996, which took effect
Communities (Agents: Dierk Booû, Klaus-Dieter                      retroactively on 1 January 1996, the applicant was
Borchardt and Hubert van Vliet) Ð application for a                appointed a probationer official in grade LA 7, step 1 and
declaration pursuant to Article 175 of the Treaty that the         assigned to the Translation Service, Directorate G Ð
Commission has failed to take a position on the                    Eurostat, information and innovation, credit and
applicant's request of 16 December 1996 for the issue of           investments, Publications Office and ECSC, English
additional import licences as a transitional measure under         Language Unit, in Luxembourg. He was established in his
the common organization of the markets in the banana               post by decision of 28 October 1996, which took effect on
sector Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),             1 November 1996.
composed of P. Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. D.
Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order the
operative part of which is as follows:                             The act complained of is the decision of 12 March 1997
                                                                   annulling and replacing that of 26 February 1996, by
                                                                   which the appointing authority appointed the applicant a
1. There is no need to adjudicate.                                 probationer official in grade LA 7, step 3.
 ---pagebreak--- C 26/8                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.1.98
The applicant maintains that, at the time when the                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
selection procedure in issue took place, the defendant
waived its discretion under Article 31(2) of the Staff
Regulations. Furthermore, its interpretation of Article 31         Ð annul the decision of the selection board in internal
of the Staff Regulations had the effect of making it                   competition COM/T/A/97 rejecting the applicant's
impossible to apply Article 31(2).                                     candidature,
The criteria applied are not only clearly more restrictive         Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
than those provided for by the Staff Regulations and the
measures adopted for their application; they pursue a
different objective from that intended by the Community            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
legislature, namely, to allow a proper value to be attached,
upon the recruitment of an official, to experience
possessed by the person concerned which is particularly            The applicant, a grade B official possessing a university
useful to the recruiting institution.                              degree, contests the refusal by the selection board in
                                                                   competition COM/T/A/97 to admit him to the tests in that
                                                                   competition on the ground that he did not fulfil the
                                                                   condition in the notice of competition requiring candidates
It is also clear that, as a result of the decision of the
                                                                   to be classified in grades A 8 to A 4 as at the date for
Grading Committee to apply to the applicant the new
                                                                   submission of applications.
general implementing provisions adopted on 7 February
1996 instead of the very much less restrictive provisions
previously in force which were applied to other successful
                                                                   The applicant advances the following pleas in support of
candidates in the same competition, the applicant has
                                                                   his claims:
suffered discrimination and unequal treatment.
                                                                   Ð Infringement of Articles 27 and 28 of the Staff
In addition, having regard to the requirements laid down               Regulations, breach of the principle of equal treatment
by the competition notice and the specific characteristics             and infringement of the right of officials to participate
of the post to which the applicant was assigned, the                   in procedures for constituting reserve lists of assistant
administration clearly committed an error of assessment in             administrators/principal administrators. He states in
recruiting him at the basic grade.                                     that regard that a procedure for filling posts which is
                                                                       initiated by publication of a notice of internal
                                                                       competition can only be intended to achieve the
Lastly, in view of the implicit rejection by the appointing            recruitment of persons of the highest standard of
authority of the applicant's complaint, the contested                  ability, efficiency and integrity, whatever their status as
decision is vitiated by the complete absence of any                    Community servants under the Staff Regulations may
statement of reasons.                                                  be at any given point in time. Furthermore, Article 28
                                                                       of the Staff Regulations sets out an exhaustive list of
                                                                       the criteria non-fulfilment of which precludes the
                                                                       recruitment of persons as officials. In addition, the
                                                                       exclusion criterion relating to the status of candidates
                                                                       possessing the same or even higher qualifications
                                                                       constitutes a breach of the principle of equal
Action brought on 20 November 1997 by Manuel TomaÂs                    treatment.
Carrasco Benítez against the Commission of the European
                         Communities
                                                                   Ð Manifest error of assessment and infringement of
                       (Case T-294/97)                                 Article 5 of the Staff Regulations, inasmuch as there is
                                                                       nothing in any provision of the Staff Regulations
                         (98/C 26/15)
                                                                       which authorizes a Community institution to reserve
                                                                       posts for a specific category of officials or to limit
                                                                       eligibility for recruitment to certain posts solely to
               (Language of the case: French)                          members of the temporary staff who already occupy
                                                                       the post to be filled or a post of the same grade, where
                                                                       a candidate whose application is refused possesses the
An action against the Commission of the European                       experience and qualifications required.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 20 November
1997 by Manuel TomaÂs Carrasco Benítez, residing in                Ð Infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations,
London, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry                       inasmuch as the contested decision disregards the
Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of                 obligation to provide a statement of reasons.
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sarl, 30
Rue de Cessange.


title: Case C-105/08: Action brought on 6 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/15

         Action brought on 6 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-105/08)
   (2008/C 116/26)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by R. Lyal and M. Afonso, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               A declaration that, by taxing payment of interest abroad more heavily than payment of interest to entities resident in Portuguese territory, the Portuguese Republic imposes restrictions on the provision of mortgage and other loan services by financial institutions resident in other Member States and in States party to the EEA Agreement, and it has therefore failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 EC and 56 EC and Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Código do Imposto sobre o Rendimento das Pessoas Colectivas (CIRC) (the Corporation Tax Code) provides for different tax treatment of income relating to interest paid to financial institutions, depending on whether they are resident or not in Portuguese territory.
   The taxation applicable in Portugal to interest paid to non-resident financial institutions leads to a far heavier real tax burden than that borne by resident taxpayers in respect of similar income. The national legislation thus dissuades non-resident financial institutions from offering their services on the Portuguese market, in particular mortgage loan services, and prevents persons resident in Portugal from gaining access to the loan services that might be offered them by those institutions. Such legislation therefore constitutes a restriction of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in Articles 49 EC and 56 EC and in the corresponding provisions of the EEA Agreement.


title: Case T-355/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2017 — adp Gauselmann v EUIPO (MULTI FRUITS) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark MULTI FRUITS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2017 — adp Gauselmann v EUIPO (MULTI FRUITS)
   (Case T-355/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark MULTI FRUITS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 221/29)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2016 (Case R 1043/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MULTI FRUITS as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders adp Gauselmann GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.


title: Case T-718/13: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2014  — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV) (Community trade mark — Application for revocation — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/19

         Order of the General Court of 17 July 2014 — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV)
   (Case T-718/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for revocation - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 339/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Directv Group, Inc. (El Segundo, United States) (represented by: F. Valentin, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Bolloré (Ergué Gabéric, France) (represented by: S. Legrand, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 October 2013 (Case R 1812/2012-2) concerning cancellation proceedings between Bolloré and The Directv Group, Inc.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its costs, including those incurred by the defendant and the other party to the proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


title: Case T-482/07: Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Nynäs Petroleum and Nynas Petróleo v Commission

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/56

         Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Nynäs Petroleum and Nynas Petróleo v Commission
   (Case T-482/07)
   (2008/C 51/101)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: AB Nynäs Petroleum (Stockholm, Sweden) and Nynas Petróleo, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: D. Beard, Barrister and M. Dean, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Article 1 of the decision insofar as it applies to Nynas for the period 1991-1996;

               —

               annulment of Article 1 of the decision insofar as it applies to Nynas in respect of price coordination;

               —

               annulment of Article 2 of the decision insofar as it imposes fines of EUR 10 642 500 on Nynas SA and EUR 10 395 000 on AB Nynäs or, in the alternative, reduce that fine as appropriate;

               —

               order that the Commission pays the costs of the appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application partial annulment is sought, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of Commission Decision C(2007) 4441 final of 3 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/38.710 — Bitumen — Spain) by which the Commission found that the applicants, Nynäs Petroleum and Nynas Petróleo (together ‘Nynas’), among other undertakings, participated in a set of agreements and concerted practices in the penetration bitumen business which covered the territory of Spain and which consisted in market sharing agreements and price coordination; as well as/or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant, pursuant to Article 229 EC.
   The grounds of the appeal are based on the following pleas:

               (i)

               It is claimed that the Commission erred in its assessment of the duration of the involvement of Nynas in the alleged market allocation arrangements, in particular, by holding that Nynas has participated in the alleged infringement between 1991 and 1996.

               (ii)

               It is further submitted that the Commission erred in its finding that Nynas were involved in the alleged pricing infringements.

               (iii)

               Finally, the applicants contend that the Commission erred in its assessment of the degree of involvement by Nynas in aspects to the infringements and in setting the appropriate level of the fine to be imposed on Nynas.


title: Joined Cases C-448/10 P to C-450/10 P: Order of the Court of 6 October 2011 — ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA (C-448/10 P), Cementir Italia Srl (C-449/10 P), Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA (C-450/10 P) v European Commission (Appeal — Compensation for expropriation on grounds of public interest — Temporal extension of a preferential tariff for the supply of electricity — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Concept of advantage — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Interpretation of national law — Distortion — Concept — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/12

         Order of the Court of 6 October 2011 — ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA (C-448/10 P), Cementir Italia Srl (C-449/10 P), Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA (C-450/10 P) v European Commission
   (Joined Cases C-448/10 P to C-450/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Compensation for expropriation on grounds of public interest - Temporal extension of a preferential tariff for the supply of electricity - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Concept of advantage - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Interpretation of national law - Distortion - Concept - Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)
   2012/C 32/21
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA (C-448/10 P), Cementir Italia Srl (C-449/10 P), Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA (C-450/10 P) (represented by: T. Salonico. G. Barone and A. Marega, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan and G. Conte, acting as Agents.)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 in Case T-62/08 ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni v Commission, by which that Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/408/EC of 20 November 2007 on the State aid C 36/A/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy in favour of ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (OJ 2008 L 144, p. 37)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeals are dismissed.

               2.

               ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA, Cementir Italia Srl and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case T-202/17: Action brought on 31 March 2017 — Calhau Correia de Paiva v Commission

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/31

         Action brought on 31 March 2017 — Calhau Correia de Paiva v Commission
   (Case T-202/17)
   (2017/C 195/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ana Calhau Correia de Paiva (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: V. Villante and G. Pandey, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul and set aside the following decisions and acts, where appropriate having previously declared illegal and not applicable to the applicant the Notice of Competition EPSO/AD/293/14 and the linguistic regime at issue under Article 277 TFEU:

                           —

                           the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) and of the Selection Board of 09/11/15 not to include the name of the candidate on the reserve list drawn from the competition EPSO/AD/293/14;

                           —

                           the decision of EPSO and of the Selection Board of 23/06/2016 not to reconsider the decision of 09/11/2015 and not to re-admit the candidate’s name on the reserve list;

                           —

                           the decision of EPSO of 22/12/2016 to respond unfavorably to the applicant’s administrative complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the decision of the Selection Board not to enter her name in the reserve list of competition EPSO/AD/293/14 and against the negative review decision.

                           —

                           the reserve list of the competition EPSO/AD/293/14.

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the breach of Article 1 of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of non-discrimination, of the principle of proportionality, and of the principle of equal opportunity with regard to the imposition by EPSO of a QWERTY EN, AZERTY FR/BE or QWERTZ DE keyboard for the realisation of the case study as well as a manifest error of assessment.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the breach of Regulation No 1 of 1958 with regard to the language regime endorsed and reinforced by the notice competition for EPSO/AD/293/14 together with a plea of illegality and inapplicability of the Notice of Competition EPSO/AD/293/14.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 1 of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of non-discrimination and of the principle of proportionality with regard to EPSO’s and/or the Selection Board’s limiting of the choice of second language of candidates in the competition to German, English and French.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal opportunity with regard to the examination procedure for EPSO’s competition.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 296(2) TFEU and Article 25 of the Staff Regulations with regard to EPSO’s failure to state reasons for their decisions to endorse and promote a particular language regime and also alleging that the notice of competition and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union were breached when EPSO pursued functions which are attributed to the Selection Board.


title: Case C-276/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — Viega GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copper and copper alloy fittings sector — End-feed fittings and press fittings — Taking and assessment of the evidence — Right to be heard before a court — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/4

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — Viega GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission
   (Case C-276/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - End-feed fittings and press fittings - Taking and assessment of the evidence - Right to be heard before a court - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of proportionality)
   2013/C 141/06
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant Viega GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: J. Burrichter, T. Mäger and M. Röhrig, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, R. Sauer, Agents, and A. Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-375/06 Viega GmbH & Co. KG v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the applicant’s action seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning a cartel in the copper and copper alloy fittings sector or, in the alternative, the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant — Infringement of the right to be heard before a court, of the principle of proportionality and of the obligation to state reasons — Infringement of the principles of the investigation procedure — Infringement of Article 81(1) EC and Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Viega GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case C-352/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 22 July 2014  — Juan Miguel Iglesias Gutiérrez v Bankia, S.A. and Others

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 22 July 2014 — Juan Miguel Iglesias Gutiérrez v Bankia, S.A. and Others
   (Case C-352/14)
   2014/C 339/14
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Juan Miguel Iglesias Gutiérrez

      Defendants: Bankia, S.A., Sección Sindical UGT, Sección Sindical CCOO, Sección Sindical ACCAM, Sección Sindical CSICA, Sección Sindical SATE and Fondo de Garantía Salarial

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 56 of the Worker’s Statute (Royal legislative decree 1/1995 of 24 March), the Fifth transitional provision of Law 3/2012 of 6 July on urgent measures for the reform of the labour market and Articles 123 and 124.13 of Law 36/2011 of 10 October governing the social courts (Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Social, which refers to the other provisions) contrary to Articles 107 and 108 of the consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, inasmuch as they materially increase the compensation authorised by the Decision of the European Commission in the case ‘State aid SA.35253 (2012/N) Spain. Restructuring and Recapitalisation of the BFA Group’?

               2.

               Is an interpretation of those national provisions that would allow the court, in the event that the dismissal is held to be fair, to adjust the compensation to the legal minimum provided for under national law contrary to the abovementioned provisions of EU law and to the Decision of the European Commission in the case ‘State aid SA.35253 (2012/N) Spain. Restructuring and Recapitalisation of the BFA Group’?

               3.

               Is an interpretation of those national provisions that would allow the court, in the event that the dismissal is held to be unfair, to adjust the compensation to the amounts provided for under the agreement reached in the consultation period, provided that those amounts are greater than the legal minimum but lower than the legal maximum, contrary to the abovementioned provisions of EU law and to the Decision of the European Commission in the case ‘State aid SA.35253 (2012/N) Spain. Restructuring and Recapitalisation of the BFA Group’?


title: Case T-294/11: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2013 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — ‘Guarantee section’ — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Olive oil — Arable crops — Manifest error of assessment — Increase in the correction due to recurrence of the infringement — Effect of the reform of the CAP on the correction — Proportionality — Nature of the expenditure intended for the establishment of the Olive GIS)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2013 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-294/11) (1)

   (EAGGF - ‘Guarantee section’ - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Olive oil - Arable crops - Manifest error of assessment - Increase in the correction due to recurrence of the infringement - Effect of the reform of the CAP on the correction - Proportionality - Nature of the expenditure intended for the establishment of the Olive GIS)
   2013/C 189/37
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and S. Papaïoannou, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Markoulli, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s Implementing Decision 2011/244/EU of 15 April 2011 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2011 L 102, p. 33) so far as concerns the Hellenic Republic

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 May 2005 in Case T-443/03 Sociedad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León, SA (Retecal) and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Concentrations — Complaint concerning an alleged failure by the Spanish authorities to fulfil their obligations — Decision to take no further action on the complaint — Inadmissibility)

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/28

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 25 May 2005
   in Case T-443/03 Sociedad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León, SA (Retecal) and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Competition - Concentrations - Complaint concerning an alleged failure by the Spanish authorities to fulfil their obligations - Decision to take no further action on the complaint - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 193/46)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case T-443/03: Sociedad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León, SA (Retecal), established in Boecillo (Spain), Euskaltel, SA, established in Zamudio-Vizcaya (Spain), Telecable de Asturias, SA, established in Oviedo (Spain), R Cable y Telecomunicaciones Galicia, SA, established in La Coruña (Spain), Tenaria, SA, established in Cordovilla (Spain), represented by J. Jiménez Laiglesia, lawyer, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: F. Castillo de la Torre, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by the Kingdom of Spain (Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea), by Sogecable, SA, established in Tres Cantos, Madrid (Spain), represented by S. Martínez Lage and H. Brokelmann, lawyers, and by Telefónica, SA, established in Madrid, represented initially by M. Merola and S. Moreno Sánchez, lawyers, and subsequently by M. Merola — action seeking the annulment of the decision of the Commission of 21 October 2003 to take no further action on the applicants' complaint of an alleged infringement by the Spanish authorities of Article 9(8) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (corrected version, OJ 1990 L 257, p. 13) in the context of the concentration between Vía Digital and Sogecable (Case COMP/M.2845 — Sogecable/Canal Satélite Digital/Vía Digital) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Švaby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 25 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicants shall bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission, by Telefónica, SA and by Sogecable, SA.

               3.

               The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59 of 6.3.2004.


title: Case C-244/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Bavarian Higher Administrative Court) by order of that court of 19 April 2005 in Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V. v Freistaat Bayern

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Bavarian Higher Administrative Court) by order of that court of 19 April 2005 in Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V. v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-244/05)
   (2005/C 205/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Bavarian Higher Administrative Court) of 19 April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 19 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V. and Freistaat Bayern on the following question:

               1.

               What protection regime is required under Article 3(1) of Directive 92/43 EEC (1) in conjunction with the sixth recital in the preamble to that Directive in the light of the prohibition on frustrating the objectives of the Treaty laid down in Article 10(2) of the EC Treaty (Treaty establishing the European Community of 25 March 1957, as most recently amended by the 2003 EU Treaty of Accession of 16 April 2003) and following the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 13 January 2005 in Case C-117/03 for sites which could be designated sites of Community importance, particularly those with priority natural habitat types and/or priority species, before they appear on the list of sites of Community importance adopted by the Commission of the European Communities under the procedure provided for in Article 21 of the Directive?

               2.

               What is the effect on that protection regime if the said sites already appear on the list of national recommendations submitted to the Commission under Article 4(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC?

               3.

               Is a national protection regime for the said sites under Article 48(2) of the Bavarian Naturschutzgesetz (Nature Conservancy Law) sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Community law under Article 3(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC in conjunction with the sixth recital in the preamble to that Directive in the light of the prohibition on frustrating the objectives of the Treaty laid down in Article 10(2) of the EC Treaty?
               Article 48(2) of the Bavarian Naturschutzgesetz is worded as follows:
               ‘Until such time as regulations are brought in under Part III the institutes for nature conservation having authority under Article 45 or agencies for the provisional safeguarding of areas of conservation and objects meriting protection may bring in general or specific regulations imposing the bans on changes provided for under Part III for a period of up to two years if it is feared that the purpose of the intended protective measure would be adversely affected by changes; if special circumstances so require, the period may be extended for a maximum of one further year. The measure may not be brought in unless the competent institute for nature conservation or agency instigates procedure for definitive protection at the same time or immediately thereafter.’

      (1)  OJ. 1992 L 206, p . 7


title: Case T-273/13: Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2015 — Sarafraz v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran — Freezing of funds — Restrictions on the entry into and transit through European Union territory — Legal base — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Error of assessment — Ne bis in idem — Freedom of expression — Freedom of the media — Freedom to choose an occupation — Free movement — Right to property)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2015 — Sarafraz v Council
   (Case T-273/13) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran - Freezing of funds - Restrictions on the entry into and transit through European Union territory - Legal base - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Error of assessment - Ne bis in idem - Freedom of expression - Freedom of the media - Freedom to choose an occupation - Free movement - Right to property))
   (2016/C 027/35)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mohammad Sarafraz (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: initially, T. Walter, then by J.M. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J.L. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P Hix and Á. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado, acting as agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Stiftung Organisation Justice for Iran (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) (represented by: initially, G. Pulles, then by R. Marx, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment in part, first, of Council Decision 2013/124/CSFP of 11 March 2013 amending Decision 2011/235/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran (OJ 2013 L 68, p. 57), second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 206/2013 of 11 March 2013 implementing Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran (OJ 2013 L 68, p. 9), third, of Council Decision 2014/205/CFSP of 10 April 2014 amending Decision 2011/235/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran (OJ 2014 L 109, p. 25), fourth, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 371/2014 of 10 April 2014 implementing Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran (OJ 2014 L 109, p. 9), fifth, Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/555 of 7 April 2015 amending Decision 2011/235/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran (OJ 2015 L 92, p. 91), and, sixth, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/548 of 7 April 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran (OJ 2015 L 92, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Mohammad Sarafraz to pay his own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders Stiftung Organisation Justice for Iran to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 March 2005 in Case T-185/03 Vincenzo Fusco v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ENZO FUSCO — Earlier Community word mark ANTONIO FUSCO — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity between signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/24

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 1 March 2005
   in Case T-185/03 Vincenzo Fusco v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ENZO FUSCO - Earlier Community word mark ANTONIO FUSCO - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity between signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 106/54)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-185/03: Vincenzo Fusco, residing in Sarmeola di Rubano (Italy), represented by B. Saguatti, lawyer, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto and P. Bullock), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance, being Antonio Fusco International SA Lussemburgo, Lugano subsidiary, established in Lugano (Switzerland), represented by M. Bosshard, S. Verea and K. Muraro — action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2003 in Case R 1023/2001-4, — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.


title: Case T-626/16: Action brought on 2 September 2016 — Mylène Troszczynski v Parliament

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/26

         Action brought on 2 September 2016 — Mylène Troszczynski v Parliament
   (Case T-626/16)
   (2016/C 383/35)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mylène Troszczynski (Noyon, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, dated 23 June 2016, taken pursuant to Articles 33, 43, 62, 67 and 68 of Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’ as amended, finding a debt on the part of the applicant amounting to EUR 56 554,00 in respect of amounts overpaid in the context of parliamentary assistance and giving reasons for its recovery under Article 68 of the implementing measures [for the Statute for Members] and Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation;

               —

               annul debit note No 2016-888, undated, informing the applicant that a debt had been found with respect to her by decision of the General Secretary of 23 June 2016 — recovery of sums overpaid in respect of parliamentary assistance — application of Article 68 of the implementing measures for the Statute for Members and Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay Ms Mylène Troszczynski the sum of EUR 50 000 by way of reimbursement of recoverable costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging defects affecting the external legality of the contested acts. This plea is divided into three parts.

                           —

                           First part, according to which the Bureau of the European Parliament, and not the Secretary General, has competence with respect to financial decisions affecting political parties and, therefore, the Members.

                           —

                           Second part, according to which the Bureau of the European Parliament does not have the power to decide on its own competence and, therefore, is unable to modify its nature and scope. The Secretary General fails to show that the President of the Bureau of the European Parliament delegated powers to him enabling him to adopt, sign and notify the contested acts concerning the settlement of financial questions affecting a Member.

                           —

                           Third part, according to which the author of the contested acts failed to give a statement of reasons. Thus, the justification provided does not cover the factual situation set out in those acts and it contains an irreconcilable contradiction between the complaint that the applicant’s assistant actually carries out two functions concurrently and the complaint that the assistant carries out only one function to the exclusion of any other; only the Secretary General refers to that latter situation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging defects affecting the internal legality of the contested acts. This plea is divided into nine parts.

                           —

                           First part, according to which the events complained of in support of the contested acts did not occur.

                           —

                           Second part, according to which the adoption of the contested acts infringed the rules and general principles of law applicable to establishing proof and the burden of proof.

                           —

                           Third part, according to which the Secretary General’s decision to recover the sum overpaid infringed the principle of proportionality. The amount claimed is furthermore not justified by either detail or a method of calculation.

                           —

                           Fourth part, according to which the contested acts prejudice the political rights of the local assistants of MEPs.

                           —

                           Fifth part, according to which the contested acts are vitiated by misuse of power, in that the Secretary General assumed compulsion powers of a financial nature which he does not possess for the purpose of restricting a Member’s means of acting, whose ideals and the political agenda it is of undeniable public knowledge he does not share.

                           —

                           Sixth part, according to which the contested acts are discriminatory and that these presuppose the intention of causing political damage to the applicant; thus there is a fumus persecutionis.

                           —

                           Seventh part, according to which the contested acts prejudice the independence of the applicant in her capacity as MEP.

                           —

                           Eighth part, according to which the contested acts violate the principle of ‘electa una via’ and raise question of the impartiality of OLAF which only conducts its investigation by seeking evidence against the party concerned where that party is a French MEP from the Front National’s list.

                           —

                           Ninth part, according to which the contested acts amount to an infringement of the general legal principle that ‘civil proceedings must await the outcome of criminal proceedings’ in that the proceedings for recovery of overpayment ought to be suspended until the outcome of the other proceedings, in particular the French proceedings, and an infringement of the principle non bis in idem.


title: Case T-251/08: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2011 — Vion v OHIM (PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2011 — Vion v OHIM (PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD)
   (Case T-251/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 319/23
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Vion NV (Best, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Klinger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: M. Kicia and subsequently by: R. Manea, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 April 2008 (Case R 562/2007-4) concerning the registration of the word sign PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Vion NV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case T-412/10: Action brought on 9 September 2010 — Roca v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/57

         Action brought on 9 September 2010 — Roca v Commission
   (Case T-412/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/92
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Roca Sàrl (Saint Ouen L’Aumone, France) (represented by: P. Vidal Martínez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment in part of Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 of 23 June 2010 in so far as it imposes a disproportionate fine on Roca Sarl (‘Roca France’) for breach of Article 101 TFEU;

               —

               accordingly, reduction of the fine imposed on Roca France, as requested in the present application, to the extent that the Court deems appropriate for the reasons set out or for such other reasons as the Court may determine, and

               —

               an order that the Commission should pay the costs incurred by Roca France.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision contested in these proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-408/10 Roca Sanitario v Commission and Case T-411/10 Laufen Austria v Commission.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in those cases.


title: Case T-182/07: Action brought on 29 May 2007 — Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen v OHMI — Tequilas del Señor (TEQUILA GOLD Sombrero Negro)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/33

         Action brought on 29 May 2007 — Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen v OHMI — Tequilas del Señor (TEQUILA GOLD Sombrero Negro)
   (Case T-182/07)
   (2007/C 170/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter, laywer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tequilas del Señor S A de CV (Guadalajara, Mexico)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant requests that:

               —

               The decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 March 2007 in Case R 1285/2005-1 be annulled;

               —

               the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) be ordered to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Tequilas del Señor SA de CV

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative Community trade mark ‘TEQUILA GOLD Sombrero Negro’ for goods in Class 33 — application No 2 722 122

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG

      Mark or sign cited: The figurative national trade marks containing the word elements ‘SIERRA’ and ‘CACTUS JACK SHOOTER’ as well as the figurative national trade mark picturing a ‘red sombrero hat’ for goods in Class 33

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.


title: Case T-31/13 P: Order of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Bouillez v Council (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2007 promotion year — Decision not to promote the appellant to Grade AST 7 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 266 TFEU — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Contradictory reasons — Comparative examination of the merits — Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/25

         Order of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Bouillez v Council
   (Case T-31/13 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2007 promotion year - Decision not to promote the appellant to Grade AST 7 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 266 TFEU - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Contradictory reasons - Comparative examination of the merits - Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)
   2013/C 336/53
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Vincent Bouillez (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Other party: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the decision of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2012 in Case F-75/11 Bouillez v Council (not yet published in the ECR), and seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is rejected.

               2.

               Mr Vincent Bouillez is to bear his own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union in these proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case T-174/05: Action brought on 27 April 2005 by Elf Aquitaine against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/31

         Action brought on 27 April 2005 by Elf Aquitaine against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-174/05)
   (2005/C 171/51)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 April 2005 by Elf Aquitaine, having its registered office in Courbevoie (France), represented by Eric Morgan de Rivery and Evelyne Friedel, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1(d) of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005, in so far as it determines that Elf Aquitaine infringed Article 81 EC between 1 January 1984 and 7 May 1999 and Article 53 EEA between 1 January 1994 and 7 May 1999;

               —

               consequently, annul (i) Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005, in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 45 million on Elf Aquitaine and Atofina jointly and severally, (ii) Article 3 of that same decision, in so far as it orders Elf Aquitaine to put an end to the infringements of Article 81 EC and of Article 53 EEA, and (iii) Article 4(9) of that decision, in so far as it addresses the decision to Elf Aquitaine;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005, in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 45 million on Elf Aquitaine and Atofina jointly and severally;

               —

               in the further alternative, amend Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005, in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 45 million on Elf Aquitaine and Atofina jointly and severally and reduce the fine imposed to an appropriate amount;

               —

               in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the contested decision the Commission found that the applicant was involved in a concerted practice consisting of allocating production quotas and customers, agreeing price increases, setting up a compensation mechanism, exchanging information on sales volumes and prices, meeting regularly and being involved in other forms of contact, in order to agree on and implement the restrictions described. The Commission imposed a fine on the applicant as a result of these infringements.
   The applicant submits that the contested decision imposes a fine on it for an infringement committed by its subsidiary and claims that it should be annulled. It relies on the following pleas:

               In its first plea the applicant alleges infringement of its right to a fair hearing. It alleges that the Commission did not set out its arguments in its statement of objections clearly, that it did not discharge the burden of proof as it should have and that it did not take the facts resulting from the administrative procedure into account.

               In its second plea the applicant alleges lack of reasoning for the contested decision, in the light of the alleged novelty of holding the applicant liable for the actions of its subsidiary and the alleged failure to respond to the applicant's rebuttals.

               In its third plea the applicant submits that it is inconsistent to hold the applicant liable for the infringement and at the same time acknowledge that the subsidiary's involvement was minimal when it was put to an end.

               In its fourth plea the application alleges infringement of the rules governing the liability of a parent company for infringements committed by one of its subsidiaries.

               In its fifth plea the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes several essential principles that are recognised by all of the Member States and form an integral part of the Community legal order, namely the principle of the individual nature of penalties, the principle of legality and the general principle of presumption of innocence.

               Its sixth plea the applicant alleges several irregularities committed by the Commission during the procedure leading to the adoption of the contested decision, which the applicant considers as infringements of the principle of good administration.

               The applicant also submits, in its seventh plea, that the novelty of the criterion for holding parent companies liable for infringements committed by their subsidiaries, as applied in the contested decision, infringes the principle of legal certainty.

               As regards the two subsequent pleas, the applicant alleges that the Commission distorted the documentary evidence submitted and that the contested decision amounts to a misuse of powers.

               In the alternative, the applicant claims that the fine should be annulled on the ground that the Commission's reasoning for its calculation is completely incoherent.

               In the further alternative, the applicant claims that the amount of the fine should be reduced.


title: Case C-147/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Karel de Grote — Hogeschool Katholieke Hogeschool Antwerpen VZW v Susan Romy Jozef Kuijpers

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/28

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Karel de Grote — Hogeschool Katholieke Hogeschool Antwerpen VZW v Susan Romy Jozef Kuijpers
      (Case C-147/16)
      (2016/C 211/36)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Vredegerecht te Antwerpen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Karel de Grote — Hogeschool Katholieke Hogeschool Antwerpen VZW

         Defendant: Susan Romy Jozef Kuijpers

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does a national court, when a claim is lodged with it against a consumer in relation to the performance of a contract and that court, under national procedural rules, has the power only to examine of its own motion whether the claim is contrary to mandatory national rules, have the power to examine in the same manner, of its own motion, even in the event of the consumer’s non-appearance at the hearing, and to determine whether the contract in question comes within the scope of [Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993] on unfair terms in consumer contracts, as implemented in Belgian law?

                  2.

                  Is a free educational establishment which provides subsidised tuition to a consumer to be regarded, in respect of the contract for the provision of that tuition in return for payment of a registration fee, increased, as it may be, by amounts for the reimbursement of costs incurred by the educational establishment, as an undertaking within the meaning of EU law?

                  3.

                  Does a contract between a consumer and a free subsidised educational establishment relating to the provision of subsidised tuition by that establishment come within the scope of Directive 93/13/EEC … and is a free educational establishment which provides subsidised tuition to a consumer to be regarded, in respect of the contract for the provision of that tuition, as a seller or supplier within the meaning of that directive?

         (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case C-423/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Nils-Johannes Kratzer v R+V Allgemeine Versicherung AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 3(1)(a) — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal opportunities and equal treatment between men and women in matters of employment and occupation — Article 14(1)(a) — Scope — Definition of ‘access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation’ — Application for a post for the purpose of acquiring the formal status of applicant only in order to claim compensation for discrimination — Abuse of rights)

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/12

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Nils-Johannes Kratzer v R+V Allgemeine Versicherung AG
   (Case C-423/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 3(1)(a) - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal opportunities and equal treatment between men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Article 14(1)(a) - Scope - Definition of ‘access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation’ - Application for a post for the purpose of acquiring the formal status of applicant only in order to claim compensation for discrimination - Abuse of rights))
   (2016/C 350/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nils-Johannes Kratzer

      Defendant: R+V Allgemeine Versicherung AG

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, must be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which a person who in making an application for a post does not seek to obtain that post but only seeks the formal status of applicant with the sole purpose of seeking compensation does not fall within the definition of ‘access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation’, within the meaning of those provisions, and may, if the requisite conditions under EU law are met, be considered to be an abuse of rights.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Case C-201/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Plant protection products — Parallel imports — Marketing authorisation procedure — Conditions — Common origin of a plant protection product imported in parallel and the reference product)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-201/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Plant protection products - Parallel imports - Marketing authorisation procedure - Conditions - Common origin of a plant protection product imported in parallel and the reference product)
   (2008/C 92/05)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and R. Loosli-Surrans, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by H.G. Sevenster, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 28 EC — Requirement that a plant protection product imported in parallel and a reference product have a common origin
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.


title: Case C-518/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 October 2016 — ZPT AD v Narodno sabranie na Republika Bulgaria, Varhoven administrativen sad, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 October 2016 — ZPT AD v Narodno sabranie na Republika Bulgaria, Varhoven administrativen sad, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-518/16)
   (2016/C 462/14)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Sofiyski gradski sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ZPT AD

      Defendants: Narodno sabranie na Republika Bulgaria, Varhoven administrativen sad, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do implementing provisions of EU law such as Regulation No 1998/2006 (1) have direct effect and apply directly, and, if so, does a provision of national law which narrows or restricts the applicable scope of the EU legal provisions infringe those principles?

               2.

               Is State aid granted in the form of tax relief compatible with competition in the internal market, where such aid is invested in assets used for the manufacture of products, some of which are exported to third countries or to Member States?

               3.

               Does the manufacture of products for export through the use of assets obtained by means of State aid come within the scope of activity directly linked to the quantities exported within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation No 1998/2006? If the answer is in the negative, are Member States entitled to provide in national legislation for additional restrictions on exporters of products manufactured using assets that are the result of tax relief investment? If the answer is in the affirmative, how does that rule relate to the provisions of Article 35 TFEU concerning the prohibition of quantitative restrictions on exports between Member States and all measures having equivalent effect and does it constitute discrimination and infringement of the free movement of goods?

               4.

               Does Article 1 of Regulation No 1998/2006 allow a legal person to be refused recognition of the right to de minimis financial aid, arising from EU law, before the expiry of the four-year period laid down in national law, in which the investment should be made, solely on the ground that in that period it invested resources in, inter alia, independent, separate structures of its business from which exports were made?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid (OJ 2006 L 379, p. 5).