title: Case C-2/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Magistrates' Court, Bitonto, by order of that court of 20 December 2003 in the case of Nicolò Tricarico against Assitalia Assicurazioni

text:
3.4.2004                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 85/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesger-                      1.   Do the facts as found in Judgment No 2199 of the
icht Innsbruck by order of that Court of 16 December                               Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) of 23 April 2002 and
2003 in the case of 1) Christine Dodl, 2) Petra Oberhol-                           in Judgment No 6139 of the Tribunale Amministrativo
         lenzer against Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse                                Regionale (Regional Administrative Court), Lazio (Rome)
                                                                                of 5 July 2001, which are deemed to be set out here in
                          (Case C-543/03)                                          full, and the decision of the Italian AGCM to which both
                                                                                those judicial decisions refer (concerning a cartel set up
                           (2004/C 85/19)                                          by various insurance companies in the area of civil
                                                                                liability for road accidents), constitute infringements of
                                                                                Community law, in particular of Articles 81 EC and 82
                                                                                EC?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht                        2.   Does an infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC imply
Innsbruck (Higher Regional Court Innsbruck) of 16 December                         an obligation on the part of the person committing it to
2003, received at the Court Registry on 29 December 2003,                          compensate end users, and all those who are third
for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1) Christine Dodl, 2)                      parties not involved in the agreement or the abuse but
Petra Oberhollenzer against Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse on                         demonstrate that they have suffered injury, for damage
the following questions:                                                           suffered?
1)    Is Article 73 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the                     3.   In assessing the amount of damages, in addition to the
      Council of 14 June 1971 (1) on the application of social                     restitution of sums charged in breach of Community
      security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                       rules, is the national court required (again as a matter of
      persons and to members of their families moving within                       Community law) to award the injured party a sum by way
      the Community, in conjunction with Article 13 of that                        of punitive damages against those persons responsible
      regulation, as amended, to be interpreted as extending                       for the prohibited agreement or abuse of a dominant
      even to employed persons whose employment relation-                          position?
      ships are still in existence but do not involve any duty to
      carry out work or pay remuneration (unpaid leave) or                    4.   Does Community law also require the payment of
      any social security obligations under national law?                          damages for non-material loss?
2)    If the answer to the first question should be in the
      affirmative:                                                            5.   As a matter of Community law, is the national court
                                                                                required of its own motion to order the payment of
      Is the State of the place of employment responsible for                      punitive damages or damages for non-material loss?
      the benefit payment in such a case even if the employed
      person and those members of his or her family for whom                  6.   Is the limitation period of one year for bringing an action
      family benefit such as Austrian ‘Kinderbetreuungsgeld’                       for damages for breach of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC
      (child-care allowance) might be payable have not lived in                    under Italian law too short and therefore in conflict with
      the State of the place of employment, particularly during                    Community law?
      the period of unpaid leave?
                                                                              7.   As a matter of Community law, for the purposes of the
                                                                                limitation period for bringing an action for damages,
(1) English special edition: Series I Chapter 1971(II) P. 0416.
                                                                                does time begin to run from the day on which the
                                                                                infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC was committed
                                                                                or the day on which that infringement came to an end?
                                                                              8.   Is there a conflict between Community competition law
                                                                                and/or the fundamental principles of Community law
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Magistrates’                             (with reference in particular to Article 6(1) and Article 13
Court, Bitonto, by order of that court of 20 December                              of the European Convention on Human Rights) and a
2003 in the case of Nicolò Tricarico against Assitalia                             national provision having an effect similar to that in the
                            Assicurazioni                                          second paragraph of Article 3 of Italian Law No 287 of
                                                                                10 October 1990 which requires a consumer or a third
                            (Case C-2/04)                                          party who has suffered damage as a result of an agreement
                                                                                which is unlawful and void under Article 81 EC or an
                                                                                abuse of a dominant position unlawful under Article 82
                           (2004/C 85/20)
                                                                                EC and who seeks to obtain damages to make an
                                                                                application to a court other than the one which has
                                                                                jurisdiction ratione loci, ratione materiae and for the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                             value of the dispute in accordance with the ordinary
European Communities by order of the Magistrates’ Court,                           national rules on jurisdiction, Article 33 of Law No 287/
Bitonto, of 20 December 2003, received at the Court Registry                       90 involving an increase in the cost and duration of the
on 5 January 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                         case which would not occur had the ordinary national
Nicolò Tricarico against Assitalia Assicurazioni on the follow-                    rules on jurisdiction ratione loci, ratione materiae and for
ing questions:                                                                     the value of the dispute applied?
 ---pagebreak--- C 85/14               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            3.4.2004
9.   Is there a conflict between Community competition law                     withdraw the invitation to tender (withdrawal decision
     and/or the fundamental principles of Community law                        analogous to the award decision) amenable to review in
     (with reference in particular to Article 6(1) and Article 13              any case, since the applicant is entitled to have that
     of the European Convention on Human Rights) and a                         decision set aside if the relevant conditions are met,
     national provision which requires a consumer or a third                   notwithstanding the possibility, once withdrawal has
     party who has suffered damage as a result of an agreement                 taken place, of obtaining an award of damages?
     which is unlawful and void under Article 81 EC or an
     abuse of a dominant position unlawful under Article 82
     EC and who seeks to obtain damages to make an                       (1) OJ L 395, p. 33.
     application to a court other than the one which has
     jurisdiction ratione loci on the basis of the registered
     office (sede) of the subsidiary of the insurance company
     with which they entered into a contract or in the court
     district in which the injured party is resident, having
     regard also to the difference in legal costs which each
     approach involves?
10. Does Community law require national courts to disapply
     national rules in conflict with Community law or rather             Action brought on 26 January 2004 by the Commission of
     to interpret them so as to comply with Community law?               the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                (Case C-22/04)
                                                                                (2004/C 85/22)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
beamt (Austria) by order of that Court of 12 January 2004                An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
in the case of Koppensteiner GmbH against Bundesimmo-                    the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 Janu-
                   biliengesellschaft m.b.H.                             ary 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Thomas van Rijn and Maria Kondou-Durande,
                                                                         Legal Advisers in its Legal Service.
                         (Case C-15/04)
                        (2004/C 85/21)                                   The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     declare that, by failing to ensure that fishing vessels which
                                                                               fly its flag and must be equipped with devices for position
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         monitoring by means of satellite were in fact equipped,
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt                          according to the type of vessel, on 30 June 1998 or
(Austria) (Federal Procurement Office) of 12 January 2004,                     1 January 2000, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
received at the Court Registry on 20 January 2004, for a                       its obligations under Article 3 of Council Regulation
preliminary ruling in the case of Koppensteiner GmbH against                   (EEC) No 2847/93 (1) of 12 October 1993;
Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft m.b.H. on the following ques-
tions:                                                                   —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
1.   Are the provisions of Article 1 in conjunction with
     Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of
     21 December 1989 (1) so unconditional and sufficiently
     precise that, in the event of withdrawal of the invitation          Pleas in law and arguments
     to tender after the opening of tenders, an individual is
     entitled rely on those provisions directly before the
     national courts and to seek a review of the withdrawal?             The period for transposition of the regulation into national
                                                                         law expired on 1 January 2000.
2.   If Question 1 must be answered in the negative, are
     Article 1 in conjunction with Article 2(1)(b) of Council
     Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 to be                      (1) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1.
     interpreted as meaning that Member States are obliged
     to make a contracting authority’s decision, prior to
     withdrawal of the invitation to tender, that it will


title: Case C-212/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (formerly the Cour d'arbitrage) — Belgium) — Government of the French Community and Walloon Government v Flemish Government (Care insurance scheme established by a federated entity of a Member State — Exclusion of persons residing in part of the national territory other than that falling within the competence of that entity — Articles 18 CE, 39 EC and 43 EC — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (formerly the Cour d'arbitrage) — Belgium) — Government of the French Community and Walloon Government v Flemish Government
   (Case C-212/06) (1)

   (Care insurance scheme established by a federated entity of a Member State - Exclusion of persons residing in part of the national territory other than that falling within the competence of that entity - Articles 18 CE, 39 EC and 43 EC - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)
   (2008/C 128/06)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour constitutionnelle (formerly Cour d'arbitrage)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Government of the French Community and Walloon Government

      Defendant: Flemish Government
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour constitutionnelle (formerly Cour d'arbitrage) (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC and Articles 2, 3, 4, 13, 18, 19, 20, 25 and 28 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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 Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416), as amended — Applicability of the Flemish care insurance scheme to persons employed in the Dutch-speaking region or in the bilingual region of Bruxelles-Capitale (Brussels Capital) and residing either in one of those regions or in another Member State, to the exclusion of persons residing in another part of the national territory.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Benefits provided under a scheme such as the care insurance scheme established by the Decree of the Flemish Parliament on the organisation of care insurance (Decreet houdende de organisatie van de zorgverzekering) of 30 March 1999, in the version contained in the Decree of the Flemish Parliament amending the Decree of 30 March 1999 (Decreet van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap houdende wijziging van het decreet van 30 maart 1999 houdende de organisatie van de zorgverzekering) of 30 April 2004, fall within the scope ratione materiae of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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 Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999.

               2.

               On a proper construction of Articles 39 EC and 43 EC, legislation of a federated entity of a Member State, such as that governing the care insurance scheme established by the Flemish Community by the decree of 30 March 1999, as amended by the Decree of the Flemish Parliament of 30 April 2004, limiting affiliation to a social security scheme and entitlement to the benefits provided by that scheme to persons either residing in the territory coming within that entity's competence or pursuing an activity in that territory but residing in another Member State, is contrary to those provisions, in so far as such limitation affects nationals of other Member States or nationals of the Member State concerned who have made use of their right to freedom of movement within the European Community.

               3.

               On a proper construction of Articles 39 EC and 43 EC, legislation of a federated entity of a Member State limiting affiliation to a social security scheme and entitlement to the benefits provided by that scheme only to persons residing in that entity's territory is contrary to those provisions, in so far as such limitation affects nationals of other Member States working in that entity's territory or nationals of the Member State concerned who have made use of their right to freedom of movement within the European Community.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.


21.4.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 118/31
       Removal from the register of Case C-335/97 (1)                 from the register of Case C-125/00: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                       (2001/C 118/88)
                                                                      (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
By order of 6 February 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-335/97: (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Arbeidshof, Antwerp): Rijksdienst voor Pen-
sioenen v Wim Westenborg.
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.                                                  Removal from the register of Case C-105/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/91)
                                                                      By order of 16 February 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
       Removal from the register of Case C-222/00 (1)                 from the register of Case C-105/00: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Portuguese Republic .
                       (2001/C 118/89)
                                                                      (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
By order of 6 February 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-222/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-225/99 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/92)
                                                                      By order of 8 March 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
       Removal from the register of Case C-125/00 (1)                 of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                      the register of Case C-225/99: (reference for a preliminary
                       (2001/C 118/90)                                ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep): Sociale Verzeke-
                                                                      ringsbank v Yamna Moughit.
By order of 14 February 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.


title: Case C-258/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — Eugenia Florescu and Others v Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Sibiu and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 143 TFEU — Difficulties as regards the balance of payments of a Member State — Financial assistance from the European Union — Memorandum of Understanding concluded between the European Union and the Member State in receipt of the assistance — Social policy — Principle of equal treatment — National legislation prohibiting the combining of a public retirement pension with employment income from a professional activity carried out in a public institution — Different treatment of persons occupying posts whose term is laid down in the Constitution and of professional judges and law officers)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — Eugenia Florescu and Others v Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Sibiu and Others
   (Case C-258/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 143 TFEU - Difficulties as regards the balance of payments of a Member State - Financial assistance from the European Union - Memorandum of Understanding concluded between the European Union and the Member State in receipt of the assistance - Social policy - Principle of equal treatment - National legislation prohibiting the combining of a public retirement pension with employment income from a professional activity carried out in a public institution - Different treatment of persons occupying posts whose term is laid down in the Constitution and of professional judges and law officers))
   (2017/C 277/02)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Eugenia Florescu, Ioan Poiană, Cosmina Diaconu (acting in her capacity as an heir of Mircea Bădilă), Anca Vidrighin (acting in her capacity as an heir of Mircea Bădilă), Eugenia Elena Bădilă (acting in her capacity as an heir of Mircea Bădilă)

      Defendants: Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Sibiu, Casa Națională de Pensii și alte Drepturi de Asigurări Sociale, Ministerul Muncii, Familiei și Protecției Sociale, Statul roman, Ministerul Finanțelor Publice

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and Romania, concluded in Bucharest and Brussels on 23 June 2009, must be regarded as an act of an EU institution, within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU, which may be subject to interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

               2.

               The Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and Romania, concluded in Bucharest and Brussels on 23 June 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the adoption of national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits the combining of a net public-sector retirement pension with income from activities carried out in public institutions if the amount of the pension exceeds the amount of the average gross national salary on the basis of which the State social security budget was drawn up.

               3.

               Article 6 TEU and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits the combining of a net public-sector retirement pension with income from activities carried out in public institutions if the amount of that pension exceeds a certain threshold.

               4.

               Article 2(2)(b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not applying to national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is interpreted as meaning that the prohibition on the combining of a net retirement pension with income from activities carried out in public institutions, laid down by the national legislation if the amount of the pension exceeds the amount of the national gross average salary on the basis of which the State social security budget was drawn up, applies to professional judges but not to persons occupying a post whose term is laid down in the national Constitution.

      (1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.


title: Case T-265/03: Action brought on 23 July 2003 by Helm Düngemittel GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.10.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 239/23
the recitals to the contested decision is inadequate. The                  Pleas in law and main arguments
publication of the standards in the Official Journal is likewise
defective as no reference is made to the fact that the standards,
for the most part, and their annexes (with the exception of
Annex ZA) are not binding and that thermal installation                    In the context of an invitation to tender for the supply of
products only need to comply with Annex ZA in order to bear                artificial fertiliser to North Korea, the applicant was awarded
the EC mark. As regards the substance, the applicants are of               the contract by the Commission. Since the artificial fertiliser
the opinion that the standards in question are incomplete,                 supplied by the applicant was late in reaching its destination,
unclear, imprecise and contradictory and that the system of                the Commission withheld from the applicant a sum of
standards is incoherent. Moreover, the use of the EC mark is               EUR 346 221,20 and refused, finally by letter of 23 May 2003,
misleading since it does not prove that the product complies               to pay the sum concerned to the applicant.
with all European standards but rather only with Annex ZA to
those standards. The contested decision thus fails to meet the
requirements of Directive 89/106, the principle of pro-                    The applicant submits that the delay in delivering the fertiliser
portionality (third paragraph of Article 5 EC) and the require-            can be attributed to restrictions on the export of fertiliser from
ments of consumer protection (Article 95(3) EC).                           China, where it intended to procure the fertiliser for export.
                                                                           As those restrictions were wholly unforeseeable, they may be
                                                                           regarded as a case of force majeure and, consequently, in
( 1) OJ C 358 of 15 December 2001, p. 9.                                   accordance with Article 22(4) of Regulation No 2519/97 (1),
( 2) Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the               no sum may be retained. The applicant also submits that no
     approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions      loss was suffered as a result of the late delivery and that
     of the Member States relating to construction products (OJ L 40       retention of the amount is therefore disproportionate to the
     of 11 February 1989, p. 12) as amended by Directive 93/68/EEC         failure to observe the delivery period and is in breach of the
     (OJ L 220 of 30 August 1993, p. 1).
                                                                           Community-law principle of proportionality. The retention
                                                                           also infringes provisions of the Belgian Civil Code, since the
                                                                           Commission did not previously expressly call on the applicant
                                                                           to fulfil that contractual obligation.
                                                                           (1 ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2519/97 of 16 December 1997
                                                                                laying down general rules for the mobilisation of products to be
                                                                                supplied under Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/96 as Com-
Action brought on 23 July 2003 by Helm Düngemittel                              munity food aid (OJ L 346 of 17.12.1997, p. 23).
GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
                              munities
                         (Case T-265/03)
                         (2003/C 239/43)
                   (Language of the case: German)                          Action brought on 24 July 2003 by Anna Maria Roccato
                                                                           (Mrs Pinson) against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                            (Case T-267/03)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 July 2003 by Helm Düngemittel
GmbH, Hamburg (Germany), represented by Dr W.P. Wasch-                                               (2003/C 239/44)
mann, lawyer.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the Decision of the Commission of the European
       Communities of 23 May 2003 concerning retention of a                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
       sum of EUR 346 221,20;
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                           Communities on 24 July 2003 by Anna Maria Roccato,
—      order the Commission of the European Communities to                 residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
       pay the costs.                                                      Laure Levi, lawyers.


title: Case T-304/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Sun Alloys Europe v Commission

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/39

         Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Sun Alloys Europe v Commission
   (Case T-304/14) (1)

   (2015/C 155/53)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-167/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October 2007 — Ermioni Komninou, Grigorios Ntokos, Donatos Pappas, Vassileios Pappas, Aristeidis Pappas, Eleftheria Pappa, Lamprini Pappa, Eirini Pappa, Alexandra Ntokou, Fotios Dimitriou, Zoï Dimitriou, Petros Bolossis, Despoina Bolossi and Konstantinos Bolossis, Thomas Bolossis v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Complaint under Article 226 EC — Treatment of complainants by the Commission — Principles of sound administration, legitimate expectations and legal certainty — Scope — Article 21 EC — Right of complaint — Scope of the Ombudsman's findings)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/13

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October 2007 — Ermioni Komninou, Grigorios Ntokos, Donatos Pappas, Vassileios Pappas, Aristeidis Pappas, Eleftheria Pappa, Lamprini Pappa, Eirini Pappa, Alexandra Ntokou, Fotios Dimitriou, Zoï Dimitriou, Petros Bolossis, Despoina Bolossi and Konstantinos Bolossis, Thomas Bolossis v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-167/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Complaint under Article 226 EC - Treatment of complainants by the Commission - Principles of sound administration, legitimate expectations and legal certainty - Scope - Article 21 EC - Right of complaint - Scope of the Ombudsman's findings)
   (2007/C 315/21)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Appellants: Ermioni Komninou, Grigorios Ntokos, Donatos Pappas, Vassileios Pappas, Aristeidis Pappas, Eleftheria Pappa, Lamprini Pappa, Eirini Pappa, Alexandra Ntokou, Fotios Dimitriou, Zoï Dimitriou, Petros Bolossis, Despoina Bolossi and Konstantinos Bolossis, Thomas Bolossis (represented by: G. Dellis and G. Adonakopoulos, dikigoroi)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: Konstantinidis, Agent)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2006, Komninou and Others v Commission (T-42/04), in which the Court dismissed as unfounded an application for compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicants following the Commission's treatment of their complaint concerning Community financing of a biological sewage treatment plant in Preveza in Greece
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 13 January 2006, Komninou and Others v Commission (T-42/04), in so far as the Court failed to rule on the plea alleging breach of Article 21(2) and (3) EC;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Dismisses the application before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, in so far as it is based on a breach of Article 21(2) and (3) EC;

               4.

               Orders Ermioni Komninou, Grigorios Ntokos, Donatos Pappas, Vassileios Pappas, Aristeidis Pappas, Eleftheria Pappa, Lamprini Pappa, Eirini Pappa, Alexandra Ntokou, Fotios Dimitriou, Zoï Dimitriou, Petros Bolossis, Despoina Bolossi and Konstantinos Bolossis, Thomas Bolossis to pay the costs at first instance. The costs of the proceedings at first instance leading to the order of the Court of First of the European Communities of 13 January 2006, Komninou and Others v Commission (T-42/04), shall be borne in the manner set out in paragraph 2 of the operative part of that order.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 April 1999 in Case C-161/97 P: Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Euratom Treaty - Action for annulment and action for damages - Conclusion of a contract for the supply of uranium - Simplified procedure - Powers of the Agency - Time-limit for conclusion of the contract - Legal obstacle to conclusion - Diversification policy - Origin of the uranium - Market-related prices)

text:
C 204/4                    EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          17.7.1999
1. Declares that, by accepting undertakings from water companies              1. Dismisses the appeal;
     for the purpose of ensuring that water complies with the
     requirements of Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980             2. Orders Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH to pay the costs.
     relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption,
     without the conditions governing the acceptance of such under-
     takings being specified in the Water Industry Act 1991, the              (1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.
     United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has
     failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and under that
     directive;
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 370 of 7.12.1996.
                                                                                of 22 April 1999
                                                                              in Case C-272/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
                                                                              (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      Reasoned opinion — Principle of collegiality — Directive
                                                                              90/605/EEC amending the scope of Directives 78/660/EEC
                                                                              and 83/349/EEC — Annual accounts and consolidated
                              (First Chamber)                                                                  accounts)
                             of 22 April 1999                                                             (1999/C 204/07)
in Case C-161/97 P: Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH v
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                                                 (Language of the case: German)
(Euratom Treaty — Action for annulment and action for                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
damages — Conclusion of a contract for the supply of                                               in the European Court Reports)
uranium — Simplified procedure — Powers of the Agency
— Time-limit for conclusion of the contract — Legal obstacle
to conclusion — Diversification policy — Origin of the                        In Case C-272/97: Commission of the European Communities
                 uranium — Market-related prices)                             (Agents: António Caeiro and Jürgen Grunwald) v Federal
                                                                              Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder and Alfred Dittrich)
                                                                              — application for a declaration that, by failing to implement
                             (1999/C 204/06)                                  within the prescribed period all measures necessary to comply
                                                                              with Council Directive 90/605/EEC of 8 November 1990
                                                                              amending Directive 78/660/EEC on annual accounts and
                      (Language of the case: German)                          Directive 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts as regards the
                                                                              scope of those Directives (OJ 1990 L 317, p. 60), the Federal
                                                                              Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        the EC Treaty — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of
                      in the European Court Reports)                          P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Man-
                                                                              cini, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges;
In Case C-161/97 P: Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH, a                          G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
company incorporated under German law, established in                         judgment on 22 April 1999, in which it:
Lingen, Germany, represented by Bernd Kunth, Gerhard
Wiedemann and Helmut Nicolaus, Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf,                     1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
Alex Bonn, 22 Côte d’Eich — appeal against the judgment                           comply with Council Directive 90/605/EEC of 8 November
of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended                           1990 amending Directive 78/660/EEC on annual accounts and
Composition) of 25 February 1997 in Joined Cases T-149/94                         Directive 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts as regards the
and T-181/94 Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems v Commission                                scope of those Directives, the Federal Republic of Germany has
[1997] ECR II-161, seeking to have that judgment set aside,                       failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
the other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: Jürgen Grunwald) — the Court                     2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
(First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),                          (1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
22 April 1999, in which it:


title: Case T-89/01: Action brought on 20 April 2001 by Claude Willeme against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
11.8.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 227/19
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           of 3 April 2001                                  —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 19 June
                                                                                2000, notified on 26 June 2000, imposing on the
in Joined Cases T-95/00 and T-96/00: Tamara Zaur-Gora                             applicant, with effect from 1 July 2000, the disciplinary
and Danielle Dubigh v Commission of the European                                  measure of downgrading from grade A3, step 3, to
                          Communities (1)                                         grade A6, step 6, as provided for in Article 86(2)(e) of the
                                                                                Staff Regulations and, in so far as may be necessary, annul
                                                                                the implicit decision rejecting the complaint submitted on
(Officials — Competition — Non-admission — Age limit                              11 September 2000;
— Request for review — Time-limit for lodging a complaint
— Admissibility — Misuse of powers — Discrimination —
                  Action manifestly unfounded)                              —     order the defendant to pay EUR 50 000 by way of
                                                                                compensation for the damage suffered as a result of that
                                                                                decision, that sum being provisionally quantified on an
                          (2001/C 227/37)                                         equitable basis;
                                                                            —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                     (Language of the case: French)
In Joined Cases T-95/00 and T-96/00: Tamara Zaur-Gora, a
member of the auxiliary staff of the Commission of the                      Pleas in law and main arguments
European Communities, residing at Lodelinsart (Belgium), and
Danielle Dubigh, residing in Brussels, represented by
J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, avocats, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities                        Disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the appli-
(Agents: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for               cant when the administration of the defendant institution
annulment of the decisions of the selection board in compe-                 learned that his wife had been awarded an employment
tition COM/C/2/99 not to admit the applicants to that                       contract with one of its contractors and had been paid for six
competition — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                  months despite the fact that she only worked for two weeks.
composed of: J. Azizi, President, and K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 3 April 2001,
the operative part of which is as follows:                                  In the context of those disciplinary proceedings, the appointing
                                                                            authority decided that the applicant should be suspended. That
1.    The actions are declared admissible;                                  decision was subsequently annulled by the Court of First
                                                                            Instance. Following delivery of the judgment annulling the
2.    The actions are dismissed as manifestly unfounded;                    decision, the appointing authority concluded the disciplinary
                                                                            proceedings by imposing on the applicant the disciplinary
3.    The parties are to bear their own costs, including those relating
                                                                            measure of downgrading from grade A3 to grade A6, that
      to the objections of inadmissibility.
                                                                            being a more severe penalty than the one recommended by
                                                                            the Disciplinary Board. The present action is directed against
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000 and OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.                        that decision.
                                                                            In support of his claim for annulment, the applicant argues
                                                                            that the defendant failed to discharge its obligation to establish
                                                                            the veracity of its complaints — the onus of proof being
                                                                            incumbent on it in that regard. It likewise disregarded the
                                                                            presumption of innocence. According to the applicant, his
Action brought on 20 April 2001 by Claude Willeme                           wife’s employment contract was perfectly regular and there
  against the Commission of the European Communities                        was no connection between the duties performed by him and
                                                                            the conclusion of his wife’s employment contract. In addition,
                            (Case T-89/01)                                  he pleads, inter alia, violation of the right to a fair hearing, a
                                                                            manifest error of assessment and the disproportionate nature
                                                                            of the sanction imposed.
                          (2001/C 227/38)
                     (Language of the case: French)                         Lastly, the applicant asserts that the appointing authority is
                                                                            liable for the damage suffered by him as a result of the
                                                                            unlawful acts invoked.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 April 2001 by Claude Willeme,
residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
Laure Levi, avocats.


title: Case T-529/13: Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2016 — Izsák and Dabis v Commission (Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative — Cohesion policy — National minority regions — Refusal of registration — Manifest lack of powers of the Commission — Article 4(2)(b) and 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2016 — Izsák and Dabis v Commission
   (Case T-529/13) (1)

   ((Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Cohesion policy - National minority regions - Refusal of registration - Manifest lack of powers of the Commission - Article 4(2)(b) and 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011))
   (2016/C 222/12)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicants: Balázs-Árpád Izsák (Târgu Mureş, Romania) and Attila Dabis (Budapest, Hungary) (represented initially by J. Tordáné dr. Petneházy and subsequently by D. Sobor, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by H. Krämer, K. Talabér-Ritz, A. Steiblytė and P. Hetsch, and subsequently by K. Talabér-Ritz, K. Banks, H. Krämer and B.-R. Killman, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, G. Szima and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, acting as Agent), Romania (represented by: R. Radu, R. Haţieganu, D. Bulancea and M. Bejenar, acting as Agents) and Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 4975 final of 25 July 2013 rejecting the application for registration of the proposed European citizens’ initiative.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Balázs-Árpád Izsák and Mr Attila Dabis to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders Hungary, the Hellenic Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/3

         The new Members of the Court of First Instance take the oath
   (2006/C 326/07)
   Mr Wahl and Mr Prek, appointed Judges at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities by decisions of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 22 June 2006 (1) and 20 September 2006 (2), for the period from 7 October 2006 to 31 August 2007, took the oath before the Court on 6 October 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 189, 12.7.2006, p. 15.

      (2)  OJ L 274, 5.10.2006, p. 15.


title: Case T-199/06: Action brought on 17 July 2006 — Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/45

         Action brought on 17 July 2006 — Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission
   (Case T-199/06)
   (2006/C 212/77)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Akzo Nobel NV (Arnhem, Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Chemicals Holding AB (Nacka, Sweden), Eka Chemicals AB (Bohus, Sweden) (represented by: C. Swaak, N. Neij, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the fine imposed on the applicants in the contested decision, or, in subsidiary order, to increase by 10 % the 40 % reduction granted under the Leniency Notice;

               —

               order the Commission to pay its own costs and those of the applicants.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants seek the annulment of the fine imposed on them by Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and Perborate, by which the Commission found that the applicants had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by participating in a cartel, which consisted mainly of exchanges between competitors of information on prices and sales volumes, agreements on prices, agreements on reduction of production capacity in the EEA and monitoring of the anti-competitive arrangements. The two applicants Akzo Nobel Chemicals Holding AB and Akzo Nobel NV are held jointly and severally liable for the infringement committed by the applicant Eka Chemicals AB (‘Eka’).
   The applicants submit that the Commission has breached the obligation to state reasons pursuant to Article 253 EC in not stating any reason for granting only a 40 % reduction of the fine within a band of 30-50 % despite the far-reaching compliance of Eka's cooperation with the criteria of the Leniency Notice (1).
   In the alternative, the applicants seek an increase of 10 % of the 40 % reduction of the fine granted under the Leniency Notice on the ground that the Commission misapplied the Leniency Notice in that Eka was not granted the highest reduction available within the relevant band, notwithstanding the fact that its cooperation fully met the criteria established at point 23, second paragraph, of the Leniency Notice. According to the applicants, the Commission therefore violated the applicant's legitimate expectations.
   Furthermore, the applicants contend that the Commission violated the principle of equal treatment in that it treated:

               i)

               similar situations, i.e. that of Eka and Arkema who's cooperation fully met the criteria in point 23 of the Leniency Notice, in a different manner by granting the maximum reduction available within the relevant band only to Arkema, and

               ii)

               different situations, i.e. that of Eka and Solvay, in a similar manner by granting both a reduction of the fine which is not the highest reduction available under the relevant band even though Eka, according to the applicants, had contributed more valuable and timely cooperation than Solvay.

      (1)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3)


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 October 2003 in Case C-154/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hässleholms tingsrätt): Jan Nilsson (International trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora — CITES — Regulation (EC) No 338/97 — Articles 2(w) and 8(3) — Notion of "worked specimen" — Stuffed animal — Concept of "specimen acquired more than 50 years previously" — Manner of acquisition — Exemption — Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 — Articles 29 and 32)

text:
C 304/8                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           13.12.2003
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                        Administration des douanes et droits indirects and Rioglass SA,
uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended                Transremar SL on the interpretation of Article 28 EC, the
by Council Directive 1999/49/EC of 25 May 1999 amending,                     Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President
with regard to the level of the standard rate, Directive 77/388              of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris (Rapporteur),
(OJ 1999 L 139, p. 27), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                  F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo,
of: D.A.O. Edward, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,                 Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
A. La Pergola and P. Jann (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo,                   the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                  which it has ruled:
on 23 October 2003, in which it:
                                                                             Article 28 EC is to be interpreted as precluding the implementation,
1.    Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to        pursuant to a legislative measure of a Member State concerning
      services provided directly to the public by musical ensembles or       intellectual property, of procedures for detention by the customs
      for a concert organiser and to services provided directly to the       authorities of goods lawfully manufactured in another Member State
      public by soloists, but applying the standard rate of that tax to      and intended, following their transit through the territory of the first
      the services of soloists working for an organiser, the Federal         Member State, to be placed on the market in a non-member country.
      Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      the third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth Council
      Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation               (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
      of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
      Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
      ment, as amended by Council Directive 1999/49/EC of
      25 May 1999 amending, with regard to the level of the
      standard rate, Directive 77/388;
2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 23 October 2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      in Case C-154/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                the Hässleholms tingsrätt): Jan Nilsson (1)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             (International trade in endangered species of wild fauna
                        of 23 October 2003                                   and flora — CITES — Regulation (EC) No 338/97 —
                                                                             Articles 2(w) and 8(3) — Notion of ‘worked specimen’ —
in Case C-115/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    Stuffed animal — Concept of ‘specimen acquired more than
the Cour de cassation): Administration des douanes et                        50 years previously’ — Manner of acquisition — Exemption
      droits indirects v Rioglass SA, Transremar SL (1)                        — Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 — Articles 29 and 32)
(Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent                                                   (2003/C 304/12)
effect — Procedures for detention under customs control —
Goods in transit intended for the market of a non-member
              country — Spare parts for motor cars)                                             (Language of the case: Swedish)
                           (2003/C 304/11)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           In Case C-154/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                             EC by Hässleholms tingsrätt (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             in the criminal proceedings pending before that court against
                                                                             Jan Nilsson, on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC)
In Case C-115/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species
EC by the Cour de cassation (France) for a preliminary                       of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ 1997
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  L 61, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
 ---pagebreak--- 13.12.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 304/9
No 2307/97 of 18 November 1997 (OJ 1997 L 325,                              for a preliminary ruling in the administrative law case of
p. 1), and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 of                    Gaye Gürol against Landesamt für Ausbildungsförderung
30 August 2001 laying down detailed rules concerning the                    Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following questions:
implementation of Regulation No 338/97 (OJ 2001 L 250,
p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,            1.    Does the first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric                      of the EEC/Turkey Association Council have direct effect
(Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,                     in the domestic legal systems of Member States of the
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                       European Community, so that Turkish children residing
on 23 October 2003, in which it has ruled:                                        legally in a Member State of the Community with their
                                                                                parents who are or have been legally employed in that
1.    Articles 2(w) and 8(3)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/                Member State, and who have the same qualifications as
      97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild                  the children of nationals of that Member State, are entitled
      fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, as amended by                  to equal access to general education, apprenticeship and
      Commission Regulation (EC) No 2307/97 of 18 November                        vocational training?
      1997 are to be interpreted as meaning that the animals referred
      to in Annex A to that regulation but which have been stuffed          2.    If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
      fall within the definition of ‘worked specimens’ for the purposes
      of those provisions.                                                        Do Turkish children still qualify as ‘residing legally with
                                                                                their parents’ if they establish and maintain their own
                                                                                principal residence at the place of their university edu-
2.    Article 8(3)(b) of Regulation No 338/97, as amended by
                                                                                cation and are registered with only a subsidiary residence
      Regulation No 2307/97, is to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                                at their parents’ address?
      receiving specimens as a gift or inheriting them, and killing
      animals and then taking them into one’s possession, makes
      them ‘acquired’ within the meaning of that provision. It is not       3.    If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
      necessary that the person who acquired the specimen more than
                                                                                Does the first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80
      50 years previously be the present owner.
                                                                                of the EEC/Turkey Association Council confer on the
                                                                                beneficiaries of that provision entitlement not only to
3.    Notwithstanding the provision in the second paragraph of                    equal access to educational facilities but also to equal
      Article 32 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 of                    access to State benefits granted by the Member State with
      30 August 2001 laying down detailed rules concerning the                    the aim of facilitating participation in education or
      implementation of Regulation No 338/97, Article 8(3)(b) of                  training, or is Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/
      the latter regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the               Turkey Association Council to be interpreted as reserving
      management authority of the Member State concerned must                     to Member States the possibility of making the grant of
      have been able to ascertain that the specimen in question was               social benefits in the area of education subject to other
      acquired in accordance with the conditions laid down in                     conditions or of limiting those benefits?
      Article 2(w) of Regulation No 338/97, as amended by
      Regulation No 2307/97.
                                                                            4.    If Questions 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative:
                                                                                Does that also apply to a university education in the
(1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
                                                                                Turkish homeland for the beneficiaries?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-
icht Sigmaringen by order of that Court of 31 July                          Action brought on 25 September 2003 by the Italian
2003 in the administrative law case of Gaye Gürol                           Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
against Landesamt für Ausbildungsförderung Nordrhein-                                                    munities
                               Westfalen
                                                                                (Case C-401/03)
                           (Case C-374/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 304/14)
                           (2003/C 304/13)
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht                     Communities on 25 September 2003 by the Italian Republic
Sigmaringen (Administrative Court, Sigmaringen) of 31 July                  represented by Ivo Maria Braguglia, acting as Agent and
2003, received at the Court Registry on 8 September 2003,                   Antonio Cingolo, Avvocato dello Stato.


title: Case T-417/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of  1 February 2006  — Endesa v Commission (Application for interim measures — Control of concentrations between undertakings — Urgency)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/30

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 1 February 2006 — Endesa v Commission
   (Case T-417/05 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Control of concentrations between undertakings - Urgency)
   (2006/C 86/60)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Endesa, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Flynn QC, S. Baxter, Solicitor, M. Odriozola, M. Muñoz de Juan, M. Merola and J. García de Enterría Lorenzo-Velázquez, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, É. Gippini Fournier, A. Whelan and M. Schneider, Agents)

      Interveners supporting the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, abogado del Estado) and Gas Natural SDG, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: F.E. González Díaz and J. Jímenez de la Iglesia, lawyers)
   Application for
   an order, firstly, for suspension of the operation of the Commission's letter of 15 November 2005 declaring that a concentration between Gas Natural SDG, SA, and Endesa, SA, does not have a Community dimension within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 24, p. 1), and, secondly, for the adoption of other interim measures
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-183/09: Order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-183/09) (1)

   2010/C 51/50

      Language of the case: Greek

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


title: Case T-462/16: Action brought on 22 August 2016 — Portugal v Commission

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/43

         Action brought on 22 August 2016 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-462/16)
   (2016/C 392/57)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C (2016) 3753 of 20 June 2016, notified on 21 June 2016, excluding from European Union financing of certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as, on the ground of ‘consolidation weaknesses’ it excludes from European Union financing the sum of EUR 29 957 339,70 relating to expenditure declared by the Portuguese Republic in connection with cross-compliance, in the financial years 2011, 2012 and 2013;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on 3 pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations which the Commission committed by acknowledging the implementation of a public development programme to adjust entitlements in accordance with Article 41(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16), but then proceeding, a posteriori, to refuse funding for the expenditure based on the adjustment of entitlements that had been proposed to it.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 34, 36 and 41(3) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.

               3.

               Third plea in law alleging infringement of Article 31(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1) and of the principle of proportionality.


title: Case C-419/08 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 — Trubowest Handel GmbH, Viktor Makarov v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes — Non-contractual liability — Damage — Causal link)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 — Trubowest Handel GmbH, Viktor Makarov v Council of the European Union, European Commission
   (Case C-419/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes - Non-contractual liability - Damage - Causal link)
   2010/C 134/08
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Trubowest Handel GmbH (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and E. Petritsi, dikigoroi), Viktor Makarov (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and E. Petritsi, dikigoroi)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by N. Khan and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of 9 July 2008 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-429/04 Trubowest Handel and Makarov v Council and Commission, by which it dismissed an action for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appellants as a result of the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the Republic of Croatia (OJ 1997 L 322, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Trubowest Handel GmbH and Mr Makarov to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 08.11.2008.


title: Case T-402/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — Kaul v OHIM — Bayer (ARCOL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ARCOL — Earlier Community word mark CAPOL — Implementation by OHIM of a judgment annulling a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Rights of the defence — Article 8(1)(b), Article 61(2), Article 63(6), Article 73, second sentence, and Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/35

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — Kaul v OHIM — Bayer (ARCOL)
   (Case T-402/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ARCOL - Earlier Community word mark CAPOL - Implementation by OHIM of a judgment annulling a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Rights of the defence - Article 8(1)(b), Article 61(2), Article 63(6), Article 73, second sentence, and Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   2009/C 113/71
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kaul GmbH (Elmshorn, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bayer AG (Leverkusen, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 August 2007 (Case R 782/2000-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Kaul GmbH and Bayer AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Kaul GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.


title: Case T-460/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 October 2007 — Bang & Olufsen v OHIM (Shape of a loudspeaker) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a loudspeaker — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/26

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 October 2007 — Bang & Olufsen v OHIM (Shape of a loudspeaker)
   (Case T-460/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a loudspeaker - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2007/C 283/46)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Bang & Olufsen A/S (Struer, Denmark) (represented by: K. Wallberg, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, Agent)
   Re:
   Action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 September 2005 (Case R 497/2005-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign formed by the shape of a loudspeaker.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 September 2005 (Case R 497/2005-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those of Bang & Olufsen A/S.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 1996 in Case C-129/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Sevilla): criminal proceedings against Rafael Ruiz Bernáldez (Compulsory insurance of motor vehicles - Exclusion of damage caused by intoxicated drivers)

text:
No C 180/ 10           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 6 . 96
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Fifth Chamber )                                                     of 28 March 1996
                       of 28 March 1996                                 in Case C- 1 9 1/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Tribunal de Première Instance, Brussels ): AGF Belgium
in Case C-129/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           SA v. European Economic Community and Others ( ] )
the Audiencia Provincial de Sevilla): criminal proceedings
                against Rafael Ruiz Bernaldez ( 1 )                      (Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the
                                                                          Communities — Additional motor insurance premiums)
 (Compulsory insurance of motor vehicles — Exclusion of
            damage caused by intoxicated drivers)                                                  ( 96/C 180/20 )
                            ( 96/C 180/ 19 )
                 (Language of the case: Spanisb)                                        (Language of the case: Frencb)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-129/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Audiencia Provincial de Sevilla
( Seville Provincial Court ), Spain, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                        In Case C- 1 9 1 /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
the criminal proceedings before that court against Rafael
Ruiz Bernâldez — on the interpretation of Council Directive             of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Première Instance
72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the                 ( Court of First Instance ), Brussels, for a preliminary ruling
laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil           in the proceedings pending before that court between AGF
liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the           Belgium SA and the European Economic Community,
enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability          Institut National d'Assurance Maladie-Invalidité ( INAMI ),
( OJ , English Special Edition 1972(11 ), p . 360 ), the Second         Fonds National de Reclassement Social des Handicapés,
Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 ( OJ No                  Croix-Rouge de Belgique and the Belgian State — on the
L 8 , 1984, p . 17 ) and the Third Council Directive                    interpretation of Article 3 of the Protocol on the Privileges
90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 ( OJ No L 129 , 1990, p . 33 ),               and Immunities of the European Cojnmunities — the Court,
both on the approximation of the laws of the Member States              composed of J. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.
relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the         Kakouris , J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ) and G. Hirsch
use of motor vehicles — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),                    ( Presidents of Chambers ), F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
composed of D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber,                  Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn, P. Jann, H.
J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho de                     Ragnemalm, L. Sevôn and M. Wathelet, Judges; F. G.
Almeida, L. Sevôn and M. Wathelet, Judges; C. O. Lenz,                 Jacobs,       Advocate-General;        D.   Louterman-Hubeau,
Advocate-General ; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                       Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on               on 28 March 1996 , in which it ruled :
28 March 1996 , which it rules :
Article 3 (1 ) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April              1 . Article 3 of the Protocol on the Privileges and
 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member                         Immunities of the European Communities is to be
States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of           interpreted as covering compulsory charges, such as
the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the                     additional motor insurance premiums, intended to
obligation to insure against such liability, is to be interpreted            contribute to the financing of public interest
as meaning that, without prejudice to the provisions of                      institutions .
Article 2 ( 1 ) of the Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of
30 December ? 983 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in
respect of the use of motor vehicles, a compulsory insurance            2 . The third paragraph of Article 3 of the Protocol is to be
contract may not provide that in certain cases, in particular                interpreted as not applicable to compulsory charges,
where the driver ofthe vehicle was intoxicated, the insurer is               such as additional motor insurance premiums, which
not obliged to pay compensation for the damage to property                   are intended to contribute generally to the financing of
and personal injuries caused to third parties by the insured                 public interest institutions and which do not constitute
vehicle. It may, on the other hand, provide that in such cases               consideration for a specific service.
the insurer is to have a right of recovery against the
insured.
(') OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7 . 1994 .                                        3 . The second paragraph of Article 3 of the Protocol is to
                                                                             be interpreted as meaning that the remission or refund of
                                                                             the amount of indirect taxes or sales taxes for which it
                                                                             provides applies to all types of purchase, including


title: Case F-76/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — Torijano Montero v Council (Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Candidates placed on a reserve list of a competition published prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Classification in grade under the new, less favourable rules — Article 5 of the Staff Regulations — Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Principle of equality — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Proportionality)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/59

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — Torijano Montero v Council
   (Case F-76/05) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Appointment - Candidates placed on a reserve list of a competition published prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Classification in grade under the new, less favourable rules - Article 5 of the Staff Regulations - Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Principle of equality - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Proportionality)
   2010/C 328/94
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Javier Torijano Montero (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially, S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers, and subsequently, S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Council’s decision classifying the applicant, who was placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, under the less favourable provisions of those regulations (Article 12 of Annex XIII to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005, p. 23. (Case originally registered at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities as Case T-302/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005.)


title: Joined Cases C-443/04 and C-444/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  27 April 2006  (references for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden) — H.A. Solleveld (C-443/04) and J.E. van den Hout-van Eijnsbergen (C-444/04) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13A(1)(c) — Exemptions — Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions — Therapeutic treatments given by a physiotherapist and a psychotherapist — Definition by the Member State concerned of paramedical professions — Discretion — Limits)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/14

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden) — H.A. Solleveld (C-443/04) and J.E. van den Hout-van Eijnsbergen (C-444/04) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Joined Cases C-443/04 and C-444/04) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13A(1)(c) - Exemptions - Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions - Therapeutic treatments given by a physiotherapist and a psychotherapist - Definition by the Member State concerned of paramedical professions - Discretion - Limits)
   (2006/C 143/25)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: H.A. Solleveld, J.E. van den Hout-van Eijnsbergen

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 13A(1)(c) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption for medical care provided in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions, as defined by the Member State concerned — Activities carried out by a physiotherapist outside the scope of the national medical and paramedical activities
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 13A(1)(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that it confers on the Member States the discretion to define the paramedical professions and the medical care coming within the scope of such professions for the purpose of the exemption laid down by that provision. However, the Member States must, in the exercise of that discretion, comply with the objective pursued by the said provision, which is to ensure that the exemption applies solely to services provided by persons with the required professional qualifications, and the principle of fiscal neutrality.
   National legislation which excludes the profession of psychotherapist from the definition of the paramedical professions is contrary to the said objective and principle only to the extent that psychotherapeutic treatments would, if carried out by psychiatrists, psychologists or any other medical or paramedical profession, be exempt from value added tax, whereas, carried out by psychotherapists, they can be regarded as being of equivalent quality having regard to the professional qualifications of the latter, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.
   National legislation which excludes certain specific medical-care activities, such as treatments using disturbance field diagnostics, carried out by physiotherapists from the definition of that paramedical profession is contrary to the said objective and principle only to the extent that such treatments carried out in the context of the said activities would, if carried out by doctors or dentists, be exempt from value added tax, whereas, carried out by physiotherapists, they can be regarded as being of equivalent quality having regard to the professional qualifications of the latter, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.


title: Case C-260/12 P: Appeal brought on 29 May 2012 by Volkswagen AG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2012 in Case T-63/09 Volkswagen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/13

         Appeal brought on 29 May 2012 by Volkswagen AG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2012 in Case T-63/09 Volkswagen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

   (Case C-260/12 P)
   2012/C 227/19
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Volkswagen AG (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus, Rechsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2012 in Case T-63/09.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appeal has been brought against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 March 2012 in Case T-63/09, by which that court dismissed the action brought by Volkswagen AG against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2008 (Case R 749/2007-2) in opposition proceedings between Volkswagen AG and Suzuki Motor Corporation.
   The appellant raises the following grounds of appeal:

               —

               procedural errors in that it was denied the right to a fair hearing and the substance of the case was distorted,

               —

               infringement of European Union law by a wrongful application of Article 8(1)(b) and (2)(a) of the Community trade mark regulation (Regulation No 207/2009). (1)

         The General Court infringed the appellant’s right to a fair hearing and distorted the substance of the case by failing to have regard to the facts put forward by the appellant. Contrary to the General Court’s findings, the appellant gave ample information in relation to the descriptive meaning of the designation SWIFT in the English language. The General Court also paid little attention to the information provided by the appellant in its appeal on the differences in commercial usage of the designation ‘GTI’ in individual countries.
   Moreover, the General Court wrongly rejected the appellant’s submission of examples of descriptive meaning in the form of three-letter signs containing the letter ‘I’ which have been registered as having distinctive character. Furthermore, the General Court infringed the principles of a fair procedure by according different probative value to the fact of trade mark registration. The appellant’s right to a fair hearing was infringed in that the General Court paid no regard to its claims regarding the unique position of the designation ‘GTI’.
   Finally, the General Court distorted the facts of the case by wrongly accusing the appellant of having failed to provide sufficient information on the legal enforcement of the mark ‘GTI’. The appellant’s submission in relation to the strength of the evidence, from which the Office for Harmonisation inferred the alleged commercial usage in Sweden, was also ignored by the General Court.
   The General Court misapplied Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009, thereby infringing European Union law. An application for a Community trade mark is to be rejected if an earlier mark exists in one of the Member States which is likely to be confused with the mark applied for. However, the General Court examined ‘the EU as a whole’ and thus incorporated aspects from countries in which such trade mark protection does not exist. This goes against the case-law of the Court of Justice in Matratzen Concord. (2)

   The General Court infringed European Union law by classing the designation ‘GTI’ as a descriptive indication of a technical nature, even though that designation is registered as a mark in a number of Member States. It is purely the task of the national authorities to decide on the descriptive meaning of a mark in their respective territories. Only if an application has been made to remove a mark from the register can a body of the European Union take account of the invalidity of a national mark in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.
   Moreover, the General Court unjustifiably specified new criteria to examine the individual position of a component within the contested mark. Furthermore, it infringed European Union law by taking the view that the mark itself was not sufficient for consumers to determine the commercial origin of the goods, and consumers would seek information unrelated to the registered mark, in particular indications as to who manufactures the goods. Finally, the General Court failed to have regard for the conditions for a likelihood of confusion in the context of a series of marks, since it rejected the addition of the mark ‘SWIFT GTI’ to the appellant’s series of signs ‘Golf GTI’ and ‘Lupo GTI’.

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

      (2)  Order in Case C-3/03 P Matratzen Concord [2004] ECR I-3657.