title: Case T-676/13: Action brought on 18 December 2013 — Italian international film v EACEA

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/42

         Action brought on 18 December 2013 — Italian international film v EACEA
   (Case T-676/13)
   2014/C 45/73
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian international film Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Fratini and B. Bettelli, lawyers)

      Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               grant the form of order sought, and consequently annul EACEA’s decision of 8 October 2013 concerning the rejection of the project relating to the film ‘Only God Forgives’ under the call for proposals EACEA/21/12;

               —

               direct EACEA to take all measures resulting therefrom;

               —

               order EACEA to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is directed against the decision of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency concerning the rejection of the project relating to the film ‘Only God Forgives’ under EACEA’s call for proposals EACEA/21/12 (MEDIA 2007 — Support for the transnational distribution of European films — the ‘Selective’ scheme 2013) (OJ 2012 C 300, p. [5]).
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward two pleas in law.

               1.

               The first plea, alleging breach of Article 296 TFEU, Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 133(3) of the Financial Regulation by virtue of the defective statement of reasons.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in particular in this regard that it does not understand why, in the present case, the defendant formed the view that the project which it had submitted was ineligible. The contested decision provides reasons for rejection which differ from those set out in the letter sent previously on 7 August 2013, stating that there was a failure to respect an eligibility criterion in the guidelines which differed from the criterion mentioned in the pre-printed part of that letter (distribution of the film to cinemas not undertaken by the applicant itself). However, in the contested decision, the project is rejected by reference to the fifth subparagraph of Article 5.1 of the guidelines, according to which a subcontractor may be used, albeit it to a limited extent.

               2.

               The second plea, alleging breach of Article 167 TFEU and the implementing rules, including the Financial Regulation, and of points 3 and 4 of the call for proposals EACEA/21/12.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in this regard that there is a manifest error in the arguments contained in the contested decision. On this point, the applicant states that it is clear from the content of the contested decision that EACEA erroneously and arbitrarily characterised the contractual relationship between the applicant and Rai Cinema as being subcontractual in nature. It also emerges from that letter that EACEA is confusing a subcontract and a contract delegating the act of ‘physical distribution’ to a third party.


title: Case T-211/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 September 2009 — Italy v Commission (State aid — Aid scheme implemented by the Italian authorities in favour of newly listed companies — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Obligation to state reasons — Selective nature — Effect on trade between Member States — Adverse effect on competition)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 September 2009 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-211/05) (1)

   (State aid - Aid scheme implemented by the Italian authorities in favour of newly listed companies - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Obligation to state reasons - Selective nature - Effect on trade between Member States - Adverse effect on competition)
   2009/C 256/36
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented initially by I. Braguglia, subsequently by R. Adam and lastly by I. Bruni, acting as Agents, and P. Gentili, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/261/EC of 16 March 2005 on aid scheme C 8/2004 (ex NN 164/2003) implemented by Italy in favour of newly listed companies (OJ 2006 L 94, p. 42).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.


title: Action brought on 25 April 1997 by Kesko Oy against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-134/97)

text:
No C 199/36           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        28 . 6 . 97
Action brought on 25 April 1997 by Kesko Oy against the                     effective competition. The Commission therefore
          Commission of the European Communities                            contravened the principles of non-discrimination,
                       ( Case T-134/97)                                     proportionality and good administration. Moreover,
                                                                            by omitting to provide any reasons for that change in
                         ( 97/C 199/ 84 )                                   practice, the Commission infringed Article 190 of the
                                                                            EC Treaty.
                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                     3 . The Article 8 (4 ) Decision requires the pre-merger
An action against the Commission of the European                            situation to be restored and in so doing goes beyond
Communities was brought before the Court of First                           what is required to achieve the goal of restoring
Instance of the European Communities on 25 April 1997                       conditions of effective competition. In excluding a
by Kesko Oy, represented by Gerwin Van Gerven, of the                       priori solutions which fall short of establishing the
Brussels Bar, and Sarah Beeston, of the Law Society of                      status quo ante, the Commission exceeds its powers
England and Wales, with an address for service in                           under Article 8 ( 4 ) of the Merger Regulation and
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, rue                          contravenes the principles of proportionality and good
                                                                            administration .
Goethe 11 , Luxembourg.
                                                                     (') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                on the control of concentrations between undertakings ( OJ No
                                                                           L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989, p. 1 ).
                                                                     ( 2 ) OJ No C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997, p . 17.
— annul the Commission decision of 19 February 1997
     in Case IV/M.784 Kesko/Tuko,
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the
     applicant.
                                                                     Action brought on 29 April 1997 by Eugenio Branco Lda.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T- 142/97)
On 20 November 1996, the Commission declared ,
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/85 )
pursuant to Article 8 ( 3 ) of the Merger Regulation H , an
implemented concentration between the applicant and
Tuko Oy, an undertaking incorporated under Finnish law,                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
to be incompatible with the common market and the
functioning of the EEA. Subsequently, on 19 February
1997, the Commission adopted a further decision setting              An action against the Commission of the European
out measures in order to restore effective competition               Communities was brought before the Court of First
pursuant to Article 8 (4 ) of the Merger Regulation.                 Instance of the European Communities on 29 April 1997
                                                                     by Eugenio Branco Lda, a limited liability trading
                                                                     company, whose registered office is at 9, Rua Rodrigo da
By application lodged at the Registry by the Court on                Fonseca, Lisbon, represented by Bolota Belchior, of the
31 January 1997 and allocated the case number T-22/                  Vila Nova de Gaia Bar, with an address for service in
97 (2 ), the applicant brought an action under Article 173           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Schroeder of
of the EC Treaty for annulment of the Article 8 ( 3 )                Faltz & Associes, 6, Rue Heine, Luxembourg.
Decision. By its present application, the applicant seeks
the annulment of the Article 8 (4 ) Decision .
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant makes the following submissions:
                                                                     — annul the decision of the Commission, notified to the
 1 . The Article 8 (4 ) Decision should be annulled because                 applicant by DAFSE by letter of 24 February 1997,
     it is conditional upon a valid Article 8 ( 3 ) Decision. In            approving the claim for final payment in the context
     so far as the Article 8 ( 3 ) Decision is annulled, as                 of a European Social Fund contribution, which
      requested by the applicant in its application of                      considered ineligible expenditure submitted by the
      31 January 1997, the Article 8 ( 4 ) Decision must                     applicant and claiming repayment of Esc 17 565 320 ,
      automatically be annulled.                                            Esc 423 507 of which it received by way of an
                                                                             advance granted by the European Social Fund, and of
                                                                             Esc 17 141 813 , which it received by way of an
 2. The procedure followed in the adoption of the                            advance on the contribution out of public funds made
     Article 8 (4 ) Decision was at variance with the                        by the Portuguese State, reducing the ESF contribution
      Commission's previous practice with regard to                          to Esc 30 672 242 ,
      implemented concentrations, in that it did not allow
      the applicant to propose, within a reasonable period
      of time, appropriate measures to restore conditions of          — order the Commission to pay the costs .


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 October 2003 in Case C-56/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des Affaires de sécurité sociale de Nanterre): Patricia Inizan v Caisse primaire d'assurance maladie des Hauts-de-Seine (Social security — Freedom to provide services — Costs of hospital stay to be incurred in another Member State — Conditions of reimbursement — Prior authorisation — Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Validity)

text:
13.12.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 304/1
                                                                          I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 2 October 2003
in Case C-195/99 P: Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG v Com-                                                    of 23 October 2003
         mission of the European Communities( (1))
(Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European                      in Case C-56/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                        producers of beams)                                  the Tribunal des Affaires de sécurité sociale de Nanterre):
                                                                             Patricia Inizan v Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie des
                          (2003/C 304/01)                                                            Hauts-de-Seine( (1))
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Social security — Freedom to provide services — Costs of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       hospital stay to be incurred in another Member State —
                   in the European Court Reports)                            Conditions of reimbursement — Prior authorisation —
                                                                               Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Validity)
In Case C-195/99 P, Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG, established in
Dortmund (Germany), (represented by F. Montag): Appeal                                                 (2003/C 304/02)
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Compo-
sition) of 11 March 1999 in Case T-147/94 Krupp Hoesch v                                         (Language of the case: French)
Commission [1999] ECR II-603, seeking to have that judgment
set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Commission
of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils,                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
assisted by H.-J. Freund), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                                  in the European Court Reports)
of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,
A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges;
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
2 October 2003, in which it:                                                 In Case C-56/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                             by the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Nanterre
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                  (France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                             before that court between Patricia Inizan and Caisse primaire
2.    Orders Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG to pay the costs.                         d’assurance maladie des Hauts-de-Seine on the validity and
                                                                             interpretation of Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                                                                             of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
                                                                             security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
                                                                             persons and to members of their families moving within the
 ---pagebreak--- C 304/2                  EN                              Official Journal of the European Union                                        13.12.2003
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1),
and on the interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC, the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans,
President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of                                            of 23 October 2003
the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann, S. von
Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in which it                       in Case C-191/01 P: Office for Harmonisation in the
has ruled:                                                                       Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v
                                                                                Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (1)
                                                                                (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC)
1.    Consideration of the first part of the question has disclosed no           No 40/94 — Absolute ground for refusal to register —
      factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 22(1)(c)(i)     Distinctive character — Marks consisting exclusively of
      of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June                          descriptive signs or indications — Doublemint)
      1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed
      persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
      families moving within the Community, as amended and
      updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December                                          (2003/C 304/03)
      1996.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
2.    The second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Regulation
      No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/
      97, must be interpreted as meaning that the authorisation to
      which that provision refers may not be refused where it is
      apparent, first, that the treatment in question is among the
      benefits provided for by the legislation of the Member State on            In Case C-191/01 P, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      whose territory the person concerned resides and, secondly, that           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: V. Melgar
      treatment which is the same or equally effective cannot be                 and S. Laitinen), with an address for service in Luxembourg,
      obtained without undue delay in that Member State.                         supported by Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: A. Dittrich
                                                                                and B. Muttelsee-Schön) with an address for service in
                                                                                Luxembourg, and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                                Northern Ireland (Agent: J. E. Collins, assisted by D. Alexander)
3.    Articles 49 EC and 50 EC must be interpreted as not precluding             with an address for service in Luxembourg: Appeal against the
      legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main           judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
      proceedings, which, first, makes reimbursement of the cost of              Communities (Second Chamber) of 31 January 2001 in Case
      hospital care provided in a Member State other than that in                T-193/99 Wrigley v OHIM (DOUBLEMINT) [2001] ECR II-
      which the insured person’s sickness fund is established con-               417, seeking to have that judgment set aside, in which the
      ditional upon prior authorisation by that fund and, secondly,              Court of First Instance annulled the decision of the First Board
      makes the grant of that authorisation subject to the condition             of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      that it be established that the insured person could not receive           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 June 1999 (Case R
      within the territory of the Member State where the fund is                 216/1998-1) dismissing the appeal brought by Wm. Wrig-
      established the treatment appropriate to his condition. However,           ley Jr. Company against the refusal to register the word
      authorisation may be refused on that ground only if treatment              DOUBLEMINT as a Community trade mark, the other party to
      which is the same or equally effective for the patient can be              the proceedings being: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, established
      obtained without undue delay in the territory of the Member                in Chicago, Illinois (United States of America), represented by
      State in which he resides.                                                 M. Kinkeldey, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in
                                                                                Luxembourg, the Court, composed of: V. Skouris, President,
                                                                                P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodri-
                                                                                gues and A. Rosas (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,
                                                                                A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen,
                                                                                F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
(1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.                                                        Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
                                                                                given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in which it:
                                                                                1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                                European Communities of 31 January 2001 in Case T-193/
                                                                                99 Wrigley v OHIM (DOUBLEMINT);


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 January 2000 in Case C-414/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling fom Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin): Landerzeugergemeinschaft eG Gross Godems v Amt für Landwirtschaft Parchim (Agriculture — Regulation (EEC) No 4115/88 — Aid for the extensification of production — Penalties applicable)

text:
8.4.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 102/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
                                                                             Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                             Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 January 2000, in which
                         (Third Chamber)
                                                                             it has ruled:
                        of 20 January 2000
                                                                             1. Article 16(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 4115/88 of
in Case C-414/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling fom                         21 December 1988 laying down detailed rules for applying the
Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin): Landerzeugergemein-                                aid scheme to promote the extensification of production, as
schaft eG Gross Godems v Amt für Landwirtschaft                                  amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 838/93 of
                             Parchim (1)                                         6 April 1993, must be interpreted to mean that the method of
                                                                                calculating the reduction of extensification aid which it lays down
(Agriculture — Regulation (EEC) No 4115/88 — Aid for                             is applicable where the discrepancy between the number of units
  the extensification of production — Penalties applicable)                      for which the aid is requested and the number of units measured
                                                                                exceeds two hectares but is less than 10 % of the surface for
                                                                                which aid is requested.
                          (2000/C 102/01)
                                                                             2. The reduction of extensification aid laid down by the second
                   (Language of the case: German)                                sentence of Article 16(1) of Regulation No 4115/88, as
                                                                                amended by Regulation No 838/93, covers the whole period of
                                                                                the undertaking given by the beneficiary of the aid, unless the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           latter can prove that the discrepancy between the number of units
                   in the European Court Reports)                                for which aid was requested and the number of units measured is
                                                                                neither intentional nor the result of negligence on its part.
In Case C-414/98, reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Verwaltungsgericht
Schwerin (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
ings pending before that court between Landerzeugergemein-
schaft eG Gross Godems and Amt für Landwirtschaft Parchim                    (1) OJ C 33 of 6.2.1999.
on the interpretation of Article 16 of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 4115/88 of 21 December 1988 laying down
detailed rules for applying the aid scheme to promote the
extensification of production (OJ 1988 L 361, p. 13), as
amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 838/93 of
6 April 1993 (OJ 1993 L 88, p. 16) — the Court (Third
Chamber), composed of J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President


title: Case T-140/00: Action brought on 25 May 2000 by Zapf Creation AG against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 233/30              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.8.2000
Action brought on 24 May 2000 by Laurent Bal against                     —     that the Commission committed a manifest error of
       the Commission of the European Communities                              appraisal in relation to the length of time for which the
                                                                               level-B tasks were performed and that the duty to have
                                                                               regard for the welfare of officials was infringed;
                        (Case T-139/00)
                                                                         —     that the duty to provide reasons was not complied with.
                        (2000/C 233/56)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Action brought on 25 May 2000 by Zapf Creation AG
European Communities on 24 May 2000 by Laurent Bal, who                  against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
is resident in Walhain, Belgium, represented by Isabelle                               Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Cooreman, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                                (Case T-140/00)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2000/C 233/57)
—     Annul the decision of the European Commission of
      28 January 2000;
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
—     Annul the internal competition procedure with reference
      No COM/7TB/99 for posts in grades B5 or B4:                        An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
In the alternative:                                                      25 May 2000 by Zapf Creation AG, Rödental/Coburg, Federal
                                                                         Republic of Germany, represented by Axel Kockläuner,
—     Order the Commission to pay him BEF 300 000 in                     Rechtsanwälte Meissner, Bolte & Partner, Munich.
      compensation for material and non-material damage;
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
In the further alternative (by way of an interlocutory ruling):
                                                                         —     annul decision R 348/1999-3 of the Third Board of
—     Allow him to bring evidence by all legal means that his                  Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
      tasks as a temporary member of staff were carried out in                 Market of 21 March 2000;
      the context of a B post and that his job as a temporary
      member of staff involved a level of tasks equivalent to            —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the procedure.
      level B;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
In any event:
                                                                         Trade mark:                   Word mark ‘New Born Baby’ —
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs in accordance                                              application no. 650234
      with Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure.
                                                                         Goods or services:            Goods in class 28 (dolls for
                                                                                playing with and accessories for
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                        such dolls in the form of play-
                                                                                things)
                                                                                Refusal to register by the Exami-
The applicant claims that the Commission has infringed the               Decision contested befo-      ner
notice of competition and Article 5(1) of the Annex of the               re the Board of Appeal:
Staff Regulations. The Commission wrongly assumed that only
professional experience gained as a member of staff at grade B           Pleas in law relied on:       — Misapplication        of     Arti-
could be taken into account in order to be admitted to the                                                 cle 7(1)(b) of       Regulation
competition. The wording of the notice, however, is to be                                                  No 40/94
interpreted as meaning that the only relevant factor was the
actual level of the applicant’s experience.                                                            — Misapplication        of     Arti-
                                                                                cle 7(1)(c) of Regulation
                                                                                No 40/94
In support of his claims the applicant argues:                                                         — Infringment of the principle
                                                                                of the right to a hearing
—     that the Commission committed a manifest error of
      appraisal in relation to the level of experience acquired
      by performing level-B tasks;


title: Case T-264/09: Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Tecnoprocess v Commission and EU Delegation to the Kingdom of Morocco (Action for failure to act — Invitation to act — Inadmissibility — Action for damages — Causal link — Loss — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/17

         Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Tecnoprocess v Commission and EU Delegation to the Kingdom of Morocco
   (Case T-264/09) (1)

   (Action for failure to act - Invitation to act - Inadmissibility - Action for damages - Causal link - Loss - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2011/C 282/30
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Technoprocess Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Majoli, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and L. Prete, Agents); and EU Delegation to the Kingdom of Morocco

      Re:

   APPLICATION firstly, for a declaration that the European Commission and the EU Delegation to the Kingdom of Morocco have failed to act and secondly, for damages to compensate for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of, inter alia, that failure to act.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as in part inadmissible and in part manifestly without foundation in law.

               2.

               Technoprocess Srl is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case C-15/09: Action brought on 12 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/25

         Action brought on 12 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-15/09)
   (2009/C 69/47)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beck and L. Jelínek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that by not taking all necessary legal and administrative measures to comply with Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, or in any event by not communicating those measures to the Commission (1), the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of that directive;

               —

               order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The prescribed period for the transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 21 December 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 373, p. 37.


title: Case T-368/08: Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 March 2012 — Atlantean v Commission

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/33

         Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 March 2012 — Atlantean v Commission
   (Case T-368/08) (1)

   2012/C 151/57
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Case C-4/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 5 January 2010 — Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac v Oy Gust. Ranin

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/36

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 5 January 2010 — Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac v Oy Gust. Ranin
   (Case C-4/10)
   2010/C 63/56
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac

      Other parties to the proceedings: Oy Gust. Ranin, Patentti — ja rekisterihallituksen valituslautakunta

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 (‘Regulation (EC) No 110/2008’) applicable to the assessment of the conditions for registration of a trade mark, containing a geographical indication protected by that regulation, which was applied for on 19 December 2001 and registered on 31 December 2003?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, is a trade mark which inter alia contains a geographical indication of origin which is protected by Regulation (EC) No 110/2008, or such an indication in the form of a generic term and a translation, and which is registered for spirit drinks which inter alia in the case of their manufacturing method and alcohol content do not meet the requirements set for the use of the geographical indication of origin in question, to be refused as contrary to Articles 16 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008?

               3.

               Regardless of whether or not the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, is a trade mark of the type described in Question 2 to be regarded as liable to mislead the public for instance as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or services, in the way referred to in Article 3(1)(g) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (2) of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, currently Directive 2008/95/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) (‘Directive 89/104/EEC’)?

               4.

               Regardless of the answer to Question 1, if a Member State has, on the basis of Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 89/104/EEC, decreed that a trade mark shall not be registered or if registered shall be liable to be declared invalid if the use of the trade mark can be prohibited by virtue of legislation other than the trade mark law of the Member State in question or Community law, is the view to be taken that, if the trade mark registration contains elements which infringe Regulation (EC) No 110/2008, on the basis of which the use of the trade mark can be prohibited, such a trade mark shall not be registered?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 39, p. 16.

      (2)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.


title: Case T-431/14: Judgment of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (CHOICE) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark CHOICE — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (CHOICE)
   (Case T-431/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark CHOICE - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 414/39)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2014 (Case R 2019/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign CHOICE as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.


title: Case C-374/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, United Kingdom) — Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Corporation tax — Payment of dividends — Tax credit — Separate treatment of resident and non-resident shareholders — Bilateral double taxation conventions)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, United Kingdom) — Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
   (Case C-374/04) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Corporation tax - Payment of dividends - Tax credit - Separate treatment of resident and non-resident shareholders - Bilateral double taxation conventions)
   (2006/C 331/05)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation

      Defendant: Commissioners of Inland Revenue
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division — National legislation on corporation tax — Retention at source (‘advance corporation tax’) applied to the profits distributed by a subsidiary to a parent company — Tax credit designed to take account of a retention made upstream — Benefit of the tax credit limited to residents and to residents of certain other Member States party to a convention for avoiding double taxation containing a clause to that effect — Liability of a Member State for breach of Community law — Form of redress
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 43 EC and 56 EC do not prevent a Member State, on a distribution of dividends by a company resident in that State, from granting companies receiving those dividends which are also resident in that State a tax credit equal to the fraction of the corporation tax paid on the distributed profits by the company making the distribution, when it does not grant such a tax credit to companies receiving such dividends which are resident in another Member State and are not subject to tax on dividends in the first State;

               2.

               Articles 43 EC and 56 EC do not preclude a situation in which a Member State does not extend the entitlement to a tax credit provided for in a double taxation convention concluded with another Member State for companies resident in the second State which receive dividends from a company resident in the first State to companies resident in a third Member State with which it has concluded a double taxation convention which does not provide for such an entitlement for companies resident in that third State.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.


title: Case C-114/07: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — The Community code relating to medicinal products for human use — Directive 2004/24/EC — Traditional herbal medicinal products — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/23

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-114/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - The Community code relating to medicinal products for human use - Directive 2004/24/EC - Traditional herbal medicinal products - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2007/C 315/39)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and M. Šimerdová, Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: T. Boček, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 85)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-439/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Vlaamse federatie van verenigingen van Brood- en Banketbakkers, Ijsbereiders en Chocoladebewerkers ‘VEBIC’ VZW v Raad voor de Mededinging, Minister van Economie (Competition policy — National proceedings — National competition authorities participating in judicial proceedings — Hybrid national competition authority being judicial and administrative in nature — Appeal against the decision of such an authority — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Vlaamse federatie van verenigingen van Brood- en Banketbakkers, Ijsbereiders en Chocoladebewerkers ‘VEBIC’ VZW v Raad voor de Mededinging, Minister van Economie
   (Case C-439/08) (1)

   (Competition policy - National proceedings - National competition authorities participating in judicial proceedings - Hybrid national competition authority being judicial and administrative in nature - Appeal against the decision of such an authority - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003)
   2011/C 55/03
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: VZW Vlaamse federatie van verenigingen van Brood- en Banketbakkers, Ijsbereiders en Chocoladebewerkers ‘VEBIC’ VZW

      Respondents: Raad voor de Mededinging, Minister van Economie

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Brussel — Interpretation of Articles 2, 5, 15(1) and 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the competition rules laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) — Submission by national competition authorities of written observations and arguments of fact and of law in the course of an appeal against their decision — Plurality of authorities in a Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 35 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 must be interpreted as precluding national rules which do not allow a national competition authority to participate, as a defendant or respondent, in judicial proceedings brought against a decision that the authority itself has taken. It is for the national competition authorities to gauge the extent to which their intervention is necessary and useful having regard to the effective application of European Union competition law. However, if the national competition authority consistently fails to enter an appearance in such judicial proceedings, the effectiveness of Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU is jeopardised.
   In the absence of European Union rules, the Member States remain competent, in accordance with the principle of procedural autonomy, to designate the body or bodies of the national competition authority which may participate, as a defendant or respondent, in proceedings brought before a national court against a decision which the authority itself has taken, while at the same time ensuring that fundamental rights are observed and that European Union competition law is fully effective.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case C-595/10 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2010 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2010 in Case T-85/09: Yassin Abdullah Kadi v European Commission

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/10

         Appeal brought on 16 December 2010 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2010 in Case T-85/09: Yassin Abdullah Kadi v European Commission
   (Case C-595/10 P)
   2011/C 72/17
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson, Agent, D. Beard and M. Wood, Barristers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Yassin Abdullah Kadi, European Commission, Council of the European Union, French Republic

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside, in whole, the decision of the General Court in case T-85/09;

               —

               Dismiss the application of Mr Yassin Abdullah Kadi for annulment of Regulation 881/2002 (1) insofar as it concerns him;

               —

               Order Mr Yassin Abdullah Kadi to bear the costs of the United Kingdom in the proceedings before the Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The conclusion of the General Court that full judicial review is appropriate for EU measures faithfully implementing United Nations Security Council resolutions is contrary to the terms of the EU Treaties and the case law of the EU Courts. It is directly at odds with the history and purpose of the EU and, in particular, the development of common foreign and security policy competence.
   The United Nations Charter requires compliance with its obligations by its Member States. Such obligations prevail over the obligations which may arise under any other international agreement. Such obligations include those imposed under Security Council resolutions intended to combat international terrorism.
   Having regard, in particular, to Articles 3(5) and 21 TEU and Article 351 TFEU, the obligation upon EU Member States to comply with the decisions of the Security Council prevails over any obligations which may arise under the EU Treaties.
   The EU must consider itself bound by the terms of the UN Charter and the UN Security Council decisions made under it.
   It is inconsistent with the binding effect of UN Security Council decisions for the judicature of the Union to engage in a full review of the EU measures that seek to implement the Security Council decisions.
   To the extent that any review of EU measures faithfully implementing Security Council resolutions is appropriate, the Union judicature must pay due regard to the nature and purpose of the United Nations Charter and the role of the Security Council as the principal body charged with ensuring international peace and security. Given the nature of the Security Council and the important role which it fulfils, having regard to the creation and operation of the Office of Ombudsperson, and taking due account of the summary of reasons provided to the Commission and Mr Yassin Abdullah Kadi, there is no reason to annul Regulation 881/2002 so far as it concerns Mr Yassin Abdullah Kadi.

      (1)  OJ L 139, p. 9


title: Case C-606/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Association nationale d’assistance aux frontières pour les étrangers (ANAFE) v Ministre de l’Intérieur, de l’Outre-mer, des Collectivités territoriales et de l’Immigration (Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 — Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) — Article 13 — Third-country nationals holding a temporary residence permit — National legislation banning the re-entry of those nationals into the territory of the Member State which issued the temporary residence permit in the absence of a re-entry visa — Meaning of ‘re-entry visa’ — Earlier administrative practice authorising re entry without re-entry visa — Need for transitional measures — Absence)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Association nationale d’assistance aux frontières pour les étrangers (ANAFE) v Ministre de l’Intérieur, de l’Outre-mer, des Collectivités territoriales et de l’Immigration
   (Case C-606/10) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 - Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) - Article 13 - Third-country nationals holding a temporary residence permit - National legislation banning the re-entry of those nationals into the territory of the Member State which issued the temporary residence permit in the absence of a re-entry visa - Meaning of ‘re-entry visa’ - Earlier administrative practice authorising re entry without re-entry visa - Need for transitional measures - Absence)
   2012/C 227/04
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d'État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Association nationale d’assistance aux frontières pour les étrangers (ANAFE)

      Defendant: Ministre de l’Intérieur, de l’Outre-mer, des Collectivités territoriales et de l’Immigration

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Article 5(4)(a) and Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1) — National rules prohibiting third-country nationals holding a provisional residence permit from re-entering the territory of the Member State which issued that permit where they do not have a re-entry visa issued by the consular or prefectural authorities — Concept of a ‘re-entry visa’ — Permissibility of transitional measures for such nationals who have left the territory — Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The rules relating to the refusal of entry to third-country nationals laid down in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 81/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009, are also applicable to third-country nationals subject to the requirement to obtain a visa who wish to return via the Schengen area external borders to the Member State which issued them with a temporary residence permit but not to enter for that purpose the territory of another Member State;

               2.

               Article 5(4)(a) of Regulation No 562/2006, as amended by Regulation No 81/2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which issues to a third-country national a re-entry visa within the meaning of that provision cannot limit entry into the Schengen area solely to points of entry to its national territory;

               3.

               The principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations did not require the provision of transitional measures for the benefit of third-country nationals who had left the territory of a Member State when they were holders of temporary residence permits issued pending examination of a first application for a residence permit or an application for asylum and wanted to return to that territory after the entry into force of Regulation No 562/2006, as amended by Regulation No 81/2009.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Case C-200/06: Order of the Court of 6 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — Raffinerie Tirlemontoise SA v Bureau d'intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB) (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Sugar — Production levies — Detailed rules for the application of the quota system — Taking into account of the quantities of sugar contained in the processed products — Calculation of the exportable surplus — Calculation of the average loss)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/9

         Order of the Court of 6 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — Raffinerie Tirlemontoise SA v Bureau d'intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)
   (Case C-200/06) (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Sugar - Production levies - Detailed rules for the application of the quota system - Taking into account of the quantities of sugar contained in the processed products - Calculation of the exportable surplus - Calculation of the average loss)
   (2008/C 313/14)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium)
   Parties

      Applicant: Raffinerie Tirlemontoise SA

      Defendant: Bureau d'intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1) — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector (OJ 2002 L 50, p. 40) — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1775/2004 of 14 October 2004 setting the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2003/04 marketing year (OJ 2004 L 316, p. 64); of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1762/2003 of 7 October 2003 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2002/03 marketing year (OJ 2003 L 254, p. 4); of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1837/2002 of 15 October 2002 fixing the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the marketing year 2001/02 (OJ 2002 L 278, p. 13); of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1993/2001 of 11 October 2001 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2000/01 marketing year (OJ 2001 L 271, p. 15); and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2267/2000 of 12 October 2000 fixing the production levies and the coefficient for calculating the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 1999/2000 marketing year (OJ 2000 L 259, p. 29) — Calculation method used to evaluate the total loss to be financed by the production levy — Taking into account, for the calculation of the exportable surplus, of all quantities of sugar exported and, for the calculation of the average loss per tonne of sugar, only of the quantities which gave rise to the payment of the export refund
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               Pursuant to Article 15(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, the exportable surplus includes the quantities of sugar which fall under that article contained in the processed products exported, regardless of whether or not refunds have actually been paid.
               Article 15(1)(d) of that regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that all the quantities of exported products which fall under that article must, regardless of whether or not refunds have actually been paid, be taken into account for the purpose of calculating both the exportable surplus and the average loss per tonne of product.
               Examination of Article 6(4) and (5) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector, where appropriate, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1140/2003 of 27 June 2003 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 38/2004 of 9 January 2004 has not disclosed the existence of any factors such as to affect its validity.

               2.

               Examination of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2267/2000 of 12 October 2000 fixing the production levies and the coefficient for calculating the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 1999/2000 marketing year; Commission Regulation (EC) No 1993/2001 of 11 October 2001 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2000/01 marketing year; and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1837/2002 of 15 October 2002 fixing the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the marketing year 2001/02 has not disclosed the existence of any factors such as to affect their validity.
               Commission Regulation (EC) No 1762/2003 of 7 October 2003 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2002/03 marketing year and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1775/2004 of 14 October 2004 setting the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2003/04 marketing year are invalid.

      (1)  OJ C 165 of 15.7.2006.


title: Case C-319/06: Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/26

         Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-319/06)
   (2006/C 224/50)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and G. Rozet, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that,

                           (1)

                           by declaring that subparagraphs 1, 2, 8 and 11 of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 constitute public policy provisions falling within ‘national public policy’;

                           (2)

                           by failing fully to transpose Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 96/71/EC (1) in Article 1(1)(3) of that Law;

                           (3)

                           by setting out, in Article 7(1) of that Law, conditions which are not sufficiently clear to guarantee legal certainty;

                           (4)

                           by requiring, in Article 8 of that Law, that documents necessary for controls be kept in Luxembourg in the hands of an ad hoc agent resident there,

                     the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) and (10) of Directive 96/71/EC, and Articles 49 EC and 50 EC;

               —

               Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By its first ground for complaint, the Commission complains, essentially, that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg interprets too widely the term ‘public policy provisions’ in the first indent of Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71/EC. That complaint regards, in particular: (1) the obligation imposed by the national legislature to employ only employees with whom undertakings posting workers to the Grand Duchy have concluded a written contract of employment or prepared a document deemed to be similar under Directive 91/533/EEC (2); (2) the national limitation period in respect of the automatic adjustment of pay to changes in the cost of living; (3) the limitation period in respect of rules governing part-time and fixed-term employment, and (4) the limitation period in respect of collective labour agreements .
   By its second complaint, the Commission complains that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg failed fully to transpose Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 96/71/EC in as much as the national legislation restricts the concept of ‘minimum rest periods’ to weekly rest, excluding other rest periods such as daily rest or breaks.
   By its third and fourth complaints, the Commission finally pleads infringement of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC attributable to the obligation imposed on undertakings whose workers carry on permanent or temporary activity in Luxembourg (1) to make available to the Inspection du Travail et des Mines ‘before the start of the works’, ‘at the mere request’ and ‘as quickly as possible’ the particulars necessary for a control, and (2) to designate an ‘ad hoc’ agent resident in Luxembourg responsible for keeping the documents necessary for monitoring the obligations on those undertakings.

      (1)  Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ L 18 of 21.1.1997, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer's obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship (OJ 1991 L 288, p. 32).


title: Case C-473/11: Order of the President of the Court of 18 September 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/20

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 September 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-473/11) (1)

   2012/C 379/33
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Case C-468/15 P P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 — PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH, Sasol Germany GmbH (Appeal — Dumping — Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1138/2011 and (EU) No 1241/2012 — Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 2(10)(i) — Adjustment — Functions similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis — First subparagraph of Article 2(10) — Symmetry between the normal value and the export price — Principle of sound administration)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/22

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 — PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH, Sasol Germany GmbH
   (Case C-468/15 P P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1138/2011 and (EU) No 1241/2012 - Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 2(10)(i) - Adjustment - Functions similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis - First subparagraph of Article 2(10) - Symmetry between the normal value and the export price - Principle of sound administration))
   (2017/C 006/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) (represented by: D. Luff, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and by N. Tuominen, avocate), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, Agents), Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH, Sasol Germany GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Case T-176/01: Action brought on 31 July 2001 by Ferrieri Nord SPA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 289/32                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.10.2001
The contested regulation granted temporary authorisation for              Action brought on 31 July 2001 by Ferrieri Nord SPA
a limited period, that is to say from 1 June 2001 to 1 March                against the Commission of the European Communities
2002.
                                                                                (Case T-176/01)
The action is directed against the Commission’s regulation
limiting the temporary authorisation of ToyoCerin to the
period ending on 1 March 2002. The applicant claims that the                                       (2001/C 289/72)
brevity of that temporary authorisation following a period
during which no authorisation was extant means that ToyoCe-
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
rin will not be able to be distributed on the market even
though there is an authorisation. It is so short that the duration
of the authorisation only marginally exceeds the sales period
required by feedingstuff manufacturers. Accordingly, the prod-            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
uct cannot in fact be used by the applicant’s purchasers for the          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
manufacture of feedingstuffs.                                             European Communities on 31 July 2001 by Ferriere Nord
                                                                          SPA, represented by Wilma Viscardini and Gabriele Donà,
                                                                          lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicant submits that the contested regulation infringes             ties.
general principles of Community law and also is vitiated by
errors of form. First of all, the regulation infringes the
requirement to give reasons in so far as it does not clearly
show — even though the Commission has no further concerns                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
about renewing the temporary authorisation — why the
authorisation has to be limited to nine months. For example,
                                                                          —     annul, pursuant to Article 230 of the EC Treaty, Com-
two other micro-organisms of the Saccharomyces Cerevisiae
                                                                                mission Decision C(2001) 1010 final of 28 March 2001
type received temporary authorisation for four years under the
                                                                                finding incompatible with the common market the aid
same regulation. The regulation also therefore infringes the
                                                                                granted by the Regione Autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia
general principle of equality and discriminates significantly
                                                                                to Ferriere Nord SPA (worth ITL 1 650 000 000) for
against the applicant’s product — it metes out unequal
                                                                                environmental investments in a new plant for the pro-
treatment which is not justified on objective grounds.
                                                                                duction of electrically welded mesh;
The applicant furthermore claims that the regulation is not               —     order the Commission to pay compensation pursuant to
proportionate and that it does not constitute a measure that is                 Articles 235 and 288(2) of the EC Treaty for the damage
appropriate either to authorise or to prohibit the additive                     suffered by Ferriere Nord SPA as a consequence of the
ToyoCerin. Finally the regulation is contradictory and infringes                illegal decision (c(2001) 1010 final of 28 March 2001)
the principle of proper administration.                                         and the consequent delay in paying the aid illegally
                                                                                cancelled;
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay all costs and fees.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 937/2001 of 11 May 2001
    concerning the authorisation of new additive uses, new additive       Pleas in law and main arguments
    preparation, prolongation of provisional authorisations and the
    10 year authorisation of an additive in feedingstuffs (OJ 2001
    L 130, p. 25).
(2) Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning           The contested decision concerns a production plant, for which
    additives in feedingstuffs (OJ 1970 L 270 p. 1), most recently        the regional aid at issue was requested, capable of bypassing
    amended by Commission Regulation No 45/1999 of 11 Novem-              the cold rolling process (drawing the wire), the straightening
    ber 1999 (OJ 1999 L 6, p. 3).                                         of the wire and its cutting to measure. The new manufacturing
(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1411/1999 of 29 June 1999               process provided for the use of wire with special technical
    concerning the authorisation of new additives and a new additive      characteristics enabling it to be used directly as steel wire in
    usage in feedingstuffs (OJ 1999 L 164, p. 56).                        the process for assembling the mesh. The applicant maintains
(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2697/2000 of 27 November                that the aid should be regarded as an instance of the application
    2000 concerning the provisional authorisation of additives in         of the general aid scheme provided for by Friuli-Venezia Giulia
    feedingstuffs (OJ 2001 L 319, p. 1).                                  Regional Law No 47 of 3 June 1978, as amended by Regional
                                                                          Law No 2 of 20 January 1992. Following the adoption of a
                                                                          number of amendments, the Commission decided not to raise
                                                                          objections under Articles 92 or 93 of the EEC Treaty (now
                                                                          Articles 87 EC and 88 EC) with regard to the 1992 Law.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.10.2001               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 289/33
In support of its application, the application submits:                        evironment in terms of reducing noise and atmospheric
                                                                               pollution;
—      The formal investigation procedure was initiated illegally,       —     the Commission failed to evaluate the investment in
       in so far as the aid granted to the applicant constitutes no            terms of the elimination of hazardous waste;
       more than the application in a particular case of the
       scheme set up by the 1978 Law, as subsequently                    —     the aims of the investment were evaluated in arbitrary
       amended, which had been approved by the Commission.                     fashion and the Community rules governing aid for
       The Commission assessed the aid directly in the light of                protection of the environment were misapplied.
       the provisions of the Treaty, as well as by reference to an
       aid scheme which had already been authorised.                     (1) OJ 2001, C 3, p. 3.
—      Both the initiation of the formal investigation and its
       findings exceeded the proper scope of such investigations;
—      Breach of the principle of legal certainty, the protection        Action brought on 2 August 2001 by Jego-Quéré & Cie
       of legitimate expectations and the rights of the defence.         S.A. against the Commission of the European Communi-
       In particular, it is submitted that the contested decision                                        ties
       (paragraph 3) is based on the Community rules governing
       State aid for the protection of the environment in                                         (Case T-177/01)
       2001 (1), whereas the investigation of the aid to Ferriere
       was conducted wholly by reference to the environmental                                     (2001/C 289/73)
       legislation for 1994. The decision to open the formal
       procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty and the                               (Language of the case: French)
       invitation to interested parties to submit observations
       were made with reference to the 1994 rules and it was
       on the basis of that legislation the applicant submitted its      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
       observations. In consequence, Ferriere was unable to              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
       exercise its rights of defence. The applicant contests, inter     European Communities on 2 August 2001 by Jego-Quéré &
       alia, the Commission’s statement that neither the Italian         Cie S.A., established at Lorient (France), represented by Antonio
       authorities nor the applicant produced adequate docu-             Creus Carreras, Begoña Uriarte Valiente and Albert Augustinoy
       mentary evidence of the environmental aims underlying             Guilayn, avocats.
       the grant of the aid in question.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      Breach of the principle of sound administration, in so far        —     annul Articles 3(d) and 5 of the Commission Regulation
       as the Commission:                                                      of 14 June 2001 establishing measures for the recovery
                                                                               of the stock of hake in ICES sub-areas III, IV, V, VI and
                                                                               VII and ICES divisions VIII a, b, d, e and associated
       —     decided to open the formal procedure when this was                conditions for the control of activities of fishing vessels
             not permissible;                                                  (OJ 2001 L 159, p. 4);
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
       —     failed to choose the correct legal basis (whether
             under ECSC or EC law) for evaluating the aid;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
       —     constantly altered the reasons given for first suppos-
             ing and then confirming that the aid granted was            The applicant’s activities are concentrated on fishing for
             incompatible with the common market;                        whiting, with only incidental by-catches of hake, in the areas
                                                                         in which the contested regulation is applicable.
       —     conducted the investigation on the basis of the 1994
             environmental legislation but, upon the conclusion          In support of its application, the applicant pleads violation of
             of that enquiry, adopted a decision on the basis of         the principles of proportionality and of equality and a failure
             more recent legislation (the 2001 rules).                   to fulfil the obligation to provide a statement of reasons. The
                                                                         applicant claims that the Commission has failed to take its
                                                                         specific situation into account, whereas it has taken into
                                                                         account that of other fishermen making only incidental by-
It is also submitted that:                                               catches of hake, and has laid down exceptions and specific
                                                                         measures in relation to them. Those exceptions and specific
                                                                         measures do not relate to the applicant.
—      the aid was evaluated in arbitrary fashion as regards
       the benefits of the Ferriere investment in the working


title: Case T-408/07: Action brought on 7 November 2007 — Crunch Fitness International v OHIM — ILG (CRUNCH)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/22

         Action brought on 7 November 2007 — Crunch Fitness International v OHIM — ILG (CRUNCH)
   (Case T-408/07)
   (2008/C 8/40)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Crunch Fitness International Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: J. Barry, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ILG Ltd (Dun Laoghaire, Ireland)
   Form of order sought

               —

               The decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal in relation to class 41 of the CTM be annulled;

               —

               the CTM remain registered for services in class 41; and

               —

               order that OHIM pay its costs both in these proceedings and in the appeal proceedings before OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘CRUNCH’ for goods and services in classes 9, 25 and 41 — Community trade mark No 62 083

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: ILG Ltd

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partial declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark for the goods and services in classes 9 and 25

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark also for the services in class 41

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 50(1)(a), alternatively Article 50(2), of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was no genuine use of the trade mark in question in the Community in connection with the services in class 41.


title: Case T-114/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Vicentin v Council

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/57

         Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Vicentin v Council
   (Case T-114/14)
   2014/C 112/74
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Vicentin SAIC (Avellaneda, Argentina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation.

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


title: Case T-231/13: Action brought on 23 April 2013 — Wepa Lille v Commission

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/37

         Action brought on 23 April 2013 — Wepa Lille v Commission
   (Case T-231/13)
   2013/C 171/71
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Wepa Lille (Bousbecque, France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.


title: Case C-591/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — (United Kingdom) — Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Revenue and Customs (Second and Sixth VAT Directives — Input tax — Refund of excess — Payment of interest — Procedures)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — (United Kingdom) — Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-591/10) (1)

   (Second and Sixth VAT Directives - Input tax - Refund of excess - Payment of interest - Procedures)
   2012/C 295/07
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others

      Defendant: Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Revenue and Customs

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Article 8 and Annex A, point 13, of the Second Council Directive 67/228/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes — Structure and procedures for application of the common system of value added tax (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I, Chapter 1967 p.16) — Interpretation of Article 11C(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Repayment of overpaid input tax — Interest rate applicable

      Operative part of the judgment

   European Union law must be interpreted as requiring that a taxable person who has overpaid value added tax which was collected by the Member State contrary to the requirements of European Union legislation on value added tax has a right to reimbursement of the tax collected in breach of European Union law and to the payment of interest on the amount of the latter. It is for national law to determine, in compliance with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, whether the principal sum must bear ‘simple interest’, ‘compound interest’ or another type of interest.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.


title: Case T-674/13: Action brought on 18 December 2013 — Gugler France v OHIM — Gugler (GUGLER)

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/13

         Action brought on 18 December 2013 — Gugler France v OHIM — Gugler (GUGLER)
   (Case T-674/13)
   2014/C 61/23
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gugler France SA (Besançon, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alexander Gugler (Maxdorf, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 October 2013 given in Case R 356/2012-4;

               —

               Cancel the contested trade mark;

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party, should it intervene, to bear the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘GUGLER’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 17, 19, 22, 37, 39 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 3 324 902

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds were those laid down in Article 52(1)(b) and 53(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 8(4) CTMR

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested Community trade mark invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) and 53(1)(c) CTMR