title: Case C-411/15 P: Appeal brought on 27 July 2015 by Timab Industries and Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 May 2015 in Case T-456/10 Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/19

         Appeal brought on 27 July 2015 by Timab Industries and Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 May 2015 in Case T-456/10 Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission
   (Case C-411/15 P)
   (2015/C 320/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Timab Industries and Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) (represented by: N. Lenoir, avocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment delivered by the General Court on 20 May 2015 in Case T-456/10;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for the purpose of reducing the amount of the fine as appropriate;

               —

               as an incidental point, find that, by virtue of the unreasonable length of the judicial proceedings, the General Court infringed the right to a fair trial;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of their appeal, the appellants rely on five grounds of appeal.
   In the first place, the General Court disregarded the rules relating to the burden of proof and infringed the rights of the defence by holding that it was for the appellants to prove, during the settlement procedure, that they had not participated in the cartel prior to 1993.
   In the second place, the appellants accuse the General Court of having infringed the right not to self-incriminate and the rights of the defence. By not verifying whether the Commission was obliged to provide evidence to support its classifying the appellants’ statements as ‘admissions’, which had a significant effect on the decision regarding the amount of the fine, the General Court misconstrued its unlimited jurisdiction.
   In the third place, the General Court misconstrued the scope of its unlimited jurisdiction by regarding as ‘new information’ the acknowledgement by the Commission, following the appellants’ withdrawal from the settlement procedure, that the appellants had not participated in the cartel between 1978 and 1992 in order to justify ordering the payment of a significantly larger fine for an infringement which had taken place over a considerably shorter period.
   In the fourth place, the General Court misconstrued its unlimited jurisdiction, vitiated its judgment with contradictory reasoning, erred in law in its application of the settlement procedure and failed to observe the principles of legitimate expectations and equal treatment by endorsing the withdrawal of almost all the reductions for cooperation granted during the settlement procedure, which the appellants could not reasonably have anticipated occurring to such an extent.
   In the fifth place, the appellants accuse the General Court of having misconstrued its unlimited jurisdiction and of having failed to observe the principle of equal treatment and the principle that penalties should be tailored to the individual.
   As an incidental point, the appellants ask the Court to find that — given the unreasonable length of the proceedings — the General Court disregarded the right to a fair trial, in breach of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.


title: Case T-185/05: Action brought on 3 May 2005 by the Italian Republic against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/32

         Action brought on 3 May 2005 by the Italian Republic against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-185/05)
   (2005/C 155/60)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 3 May 2005 by the Italian Republic, represented by Maurizio Fiorilli, Avvocato dello Stato.
   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               annul the DG ADMIN decision on the use of languages (publications under Article 29(2) — EUR-25 posts) adopted at the 1678th Administrative and Budget Meeting of 10 November 2004;

               —

               annul the competition notice for ‘Directorate-General OLAF, Publication of a vacancy for a Director-General (grade A*15-16) (Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations) (COM/2005/335)’, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 9 February 2005, series C. 34 A, p.3.

         Pleas and principal arguments adduced in support
   The present action is directed against:

               —

               the DG ADMIN decision on the use of languages (publications under Article 29(2) — EUR-25 posts) adopted at the 1678th Administrative and Budget Meeting of 10 November 2004, in so far as it provides that vacancy notices for senior posts reserved for external candidates are to be published in the Official Journal of the European Union only in German, English and French;

               —

               the competition notice for ‘Directorate-General OLAF, Publication of a vacancy for a Director-General (grade A*15-16) (Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations) (COM/2005/335)’, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 9 February 2005, series C. 34A, p.3. That notice was not published in Italian.

         In support of its submissions, the applicant claims that:

               (1)

               the contested measures call in question an essential principle of Community law which falls to be upheld, primarily, by the Member States. It is clear from Article 290 EC that the Community institutions are to exercise their powers in compliance with the requirement of linguistic diversity. Observance of the requirement of linguistic diversity is one of the essential aspects of the protection afforded to the national identity of the Member States, as is clear from Articles 12 and 148 EC and 6(3) EU. Article 12 EC, in particular, upholds, in accordance with Community case-law, a general principle of Community law as a specific expression of the general principle of equality. That principle ranks as a fundamental principle of Community law;

               (2)

               the fact of limiting to only three languages the publication of competition notices for access to posts in the Commission, which until 2004 had been published in all the ‘official languages’ of the Community, constitutes an infringement not only of Regulation (EEC) No 1/1958 but also of the last paragraph of Article 18 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, and of Articles 1d and 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and of the principle of the protection of linguistic diversity.


title: Case T-571/11: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Chez Gerard (CLUB GOURMET) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CLUB GOURMET — Earlier national figurative mark CLUB DEL GOURMET, EN. El Corte Inglés — Relative ground for refusal — Lack of similarity between the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Arguments and evidence adduced for the first time before the General Court)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Chez Gerard (CLUB GOURMET)
   (Case T-571/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CLUB GOURMET - Earlier national figurative mark CLUB DEL GOURMET, EN. El Corte Inglés - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of similarity between the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Arguments and evidence adduced for the first time before the General Court)
   2013/C 129/36
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela and J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Groupe Chez Gerard Restaurants Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2011 (Case R 1946/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés, SA and Groupe Chez Gerard Restaurants Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders El Corte Inglés, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.


title: Case T-514/13: Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2015 — AgriCapital v OHIM — agri.capital (AGRI.CAPITAL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark AGRI.CAPITAL — Earlier Community word marks AgriCapital and AGRICAPITAL — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2015 — AgriCapital v OHIM — agri.capital (AGRI.CAPITAL)
   (Case T-514/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark AGRI.CAPITAL - Earlier Community word marks AgriCapital and AGRICAPITAL - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 236/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: AgriCapital Corp. (New York, United States) (represented by: P. Meyer and M. Gramsch, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: agri.capital GmbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann-Schiffel, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2013 (Case R 2236/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between AgriCapital Corp. and agri.capital GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders AgriCapital Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.


title: Case T-235/06: Action brought on 30 August 2006 — Austrian Relief Program v Commission

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/24

         Action brought on 30 August 2006 — Austrian Relief Program v Commission
   (Case T-235/06)
   (2006/C 261/45)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Austrian Relief Program– Verein für Not- und Katastrophenhilfe (Innsbruck, Austria) (represented by: C. Leyroutz, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Debit Note No 3 240 802 998 of 4 May 2006; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant was selected by the Commission to carry out, within framework of the Obnova programme financed by the European Union, a project in Serbia on the basis of the contract signed on 2 April 1998 (‘the Obnova Contract’). By letter of 4 May 2006 the Commission requested the applicant to repay the whole amount agreed under that contract. By the present action, the applicant challenges this decision.
   The applicant alleges, first of all, that the Commission was not competent to adopt the contested decision, on the ground that jurisdiction to hear disputes arising from the Obnova Contract lies with the competent court in Brussels.
   The applicant further claims that the defendant infringed essential procedural rules. In particular, the applicant's right to a fair hearing was not granted and the obligation to state reasons under Article 253 EC was infringed. In this connection the applicant criticises also the properly to establish the facts.
   Finally, the applicant alleges that the defendant abused its discretion by seeking repayment of the whole amount agreed under the Obnova Contract, despite the fact that the terms of the contract were properly fulfilled and the individual projects properly implemented.


title: Case T-409/10: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2013 — Bottega Veneta International v OHIM (Shape of a handbag) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a handbag — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Failure to take account of an element of the trade mark applied for — Rule No 9 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2013 — Bottega Veneta International v OHIM (Shape of a handbag)
   (Case T-409/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a handbag - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Failure to take account of an element of the trade mark applied for - Rule No 9 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
   2013/C 129/28
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Bottega Veneta International Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, M. Boletto and E. Gavuzzi, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2010 (Case R 1247/2009-1), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign in the shape of a handbag as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bottega Veneta International Sàrl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case C-250/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 26 May 2014  — Air France — KLM v Ministère des finances et des comptes publics

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 26 May 2014 — Air France — KLM v Ministère des finances et des comptes publics
   (Case C-250/14)
   2014/C 253/24
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Air France — KLM

      Defendant: Ministère des finances et des comptes publics

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 2(1) and 10(2) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the issue of the ticket may be treated as the effective performance of the transport service and that the sums retained by an airline company where the holder of an air ticket has not used his ticket, which is no longer valid, are subject to value added tax?

               2.

               In that case, must the tax received be paid onwards to the Treasury on receipt of payment of the price, even though the travel may not have taken place as a result of the customer’s acts?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization 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).


title: Case F-38/09: Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Martin v Europol

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/26

         Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Martin v Europol
   (Case F-38/09)
   2009/C 167/52
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Breige Martin (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: P. de Casparis)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer her a permanent post, and the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the defendant informed the applicant that it could not offer her a permanent post and the decision of 7 January 2009 in response to a complaint, stating that the objections which the applicant had raised to the decision of 12 June 2008 were unfounded;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs.


title: Case T-423/14: Action brought on 6 June 2014  — Larko v Commission

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/48

         Action brought on 6 June 2014 — Larko v Commission
   (Case T-423/14)
   2014/C 292/59
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: Ι. Drullerakes, Ε. Τriandafyllou, G. Psaroudakis, Ε. Randos, Ν. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               uphold this action in its entirety;·

               —

               declare null and void the Commission Decision of 27/03/2014 [SG-Greffe (2014) D/4621/28/03/2014] on State aid implemented by the Hellenic Republic in favour of the applicant (No SA.34572 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN);·

               —

               order that whatever amount may have been ‘recovered’ directly or indirectly from the applicant in execution of the contested decision be reimbursed with interest and,

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

               1.

               The first plea in law is based on the infringement by the defendant of Articles 107(1) and 296 TFEU since: (a) the aid measures 2, 3, 4 and 6 cannot be categorised as State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU and (b) even if some of the aid measures 2, 3, 4 and 6 could be categorised as constituting State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, that aid is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3) TFEU.

               2.

               The second plea in law is based on the erroneous application, for which no reasons are stated, of the criteria in the Commission Notice on guarantees [OJ 2008 C 155, p. 10] and infringement of the principle of proportionality in respect of the characterisation of measures 2, 4 and 6 as State aid and in respect of the quantification of the aid element.

               3.

               The third plea in law is based on an insufficient statement of reasons and infringement of the principle of good administration by reason of the failure to take into account, in the assessment of measures 3, 4 and 6, of the damage which was caused to the applicant by the exceptional occurrences of 2009, which meets the conditions for the application of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU.

               4.

               The fourth plea in law is based on an insufficient statement of reasons and infringement of the principle of good administration by reason of the failure to take into account the circumstances of the Greek economic crisis and the consequent cessation of payment by the Greek State of benefits in favour of the applicant, as an exceptional occurrence within the meaning of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU.

               5.

               The fifth plea in law in support of annulment is based on the errors in section 4.5 and in the operative part of the contested decision, as regards the amount to be recovered: infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 14 of Regulation No 659/1999, an insufficient statement of reasons, infringement of the principle of proportionality, breach of the right to property and the punitive character of the order for recovery.


title: Case T-121/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Oil Pension Fund Investment Company v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality — Right to hold property — Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Oil Pension Fund Investment Company v Council
   (Case T-121/13) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality - Right to hold property - Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment))
   (2015/C 371/23)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Oil Pension Fund Investment Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: K. Kleinschmidt, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55) in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it listed Oil Pension Fund Investment Company in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

               2.

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it listed Oil Pension Fund Investment Company in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

               3.

               Orders the effects of Decision 2012/829 and Implementing Regulation No 1264/2012 to be maintained as regards Oil Pension Fund Investment Company until the expiry of the period for bringing an appeal stated in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union or, if an appeal has been brought within that period, until the dismissal of that appeal;

               4.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Oil Pension Fund Investment Company.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.


title: Case C-111/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 12 March 2008 — SCT Industri Aktiebolag i likvidation v Alpenblume Aktiebolag

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 12 March 2008 — SCT Industri Aktiebolag i likvidation v Alpenblume Aktiebolag
   (Case C-111/08)
   (2008/C 116/28)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Högsta Domstolen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SCT Industri Aktiebolag i likvidation

      Defendant: Alpenblume Aktiebolag
   Question referred
   Is the exception in the Brussels I Regulation regarding insolvency, compositions and analogous proceedings to be interpreted as meaning that it covers a decision given by a court in one Member State (A) regarding registration of ownership of shares in a company having its registered office in Member State A, which ownership is transferred by the liquidator to a company in another Member State (B), where the court based its decision on the fact that Member State A, in the absence of an agreement between the States regarding mutual recognition of insolvency proceedings, does not recognise the liquidator's powers of disposal over property in Member State A?


title: Case C-299/09: Order of the President of the Court of 25 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — DAR Duale Abfallwirtschaft und Verwertung Ruhrgebiet GmbH v Ministerstvo životního prostředí

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/27

      Order of the President of the Court of 25 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — DAR Duale Abfallwirtschaft und Verwertung Ruhrgebiet GmbH v Ministerstvo životního prostředí
      (Case C-299/09) (1)

      ()
      (2010/C 288/48)
      Language of the case: Czech
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case T-449/07: Action brought on 3 December 2007 — Rotter v OHIM (EU-BRUZZEL)

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/31

         Action brought on 3 December 2007 — Rotter v OHIM (EU-BRUZZEL)
   (Case T-449/07)
   (2008/C 37/49)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Thomas Rotter (Munich, Germany) (represented by M. Müller, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               To annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 September 2007 in Case R 1415/2006-4;

               —

               To order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings including those incurred during the appeal proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the three-dimensional mark ‘EU-BRUZZEL’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 30 and 43 (application No 4 346 185).

      Decision of the Examiner: rejection in part of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since the mark applied for is distinctive in relation to the contested charcuterie goods.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-422/06: Action brought on 16 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/28

         Action brought on 16 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-422/06)
   (2006/C 326/57)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 74/557/EEC of 4 June 1974 on the attainment of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in respect of activities of self-employed persons and of intermediaries engaging in the trade and distribution of toxic products (1) or, in any event, not informing the Commission thereof, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 74/557 expired on 30 June 2004.

      (1)  OJ No L 307, 18.11.1974, p. 5.


title: Case T-327/09: Order of the General Court of 27 March 2012 — Connefroy and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/27

         Order of the General Court of 27 March 2012 — Connefroy and Others v Commission
   (Case T-327/09) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 151/44
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Philippe Connefroy (Le Rozel, France); Jean-Guy Gueguen (Carantac, France); and EARL de Cavagnan (Grézet-Cavagnan, France) (represented by: C. Galvez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/402/EC of 28 January 2009 on the ‘contingency plans’ in the fruit and vegetable sector implemented by France (OJ 2009 L 127, p. 11).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Philippe Connefroy and Jean-Guy Gueguen and EARL de Cavagnan are ordered to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Joined Cases T-431/10 and T-560/10: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Nencini v Parliament (Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Travel and parliamentary assistance expenses — Recovery of undue payments — Limitation period — Reasonable period — Rights of the defence — Principle of audi alteram partem — Proportionality)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/64

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Nencini v Parliament
   (Joined Cases T-431/10 and T-560/10) (1)

   (Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Travel and parliamentary assistance expenses - Recovery of undue payments - Limitation period - Reasonable period - Rights of the defence - Principle of audi alteram partem - Proportionality)
   2013/C 225/142
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Riccardo Nencini (Barberino del Mugello, Italy) (represented by: F. Bertini and M. Chiti, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by N. Lorenz, D. Moore and A. Caiola, and subsequently by N. Lorenz, D. Moore and G. Ricci, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Applications, primarily, for annulment brought against the Decisions of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 16 July 2010 and 7 October 2010 relating to the recovery of certain sums received by the applicant, a former Member of the European Parliament, in respect of travel and parliamentary assistance expenses unduly paid, the Debit Notes of the Director General of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finances, No 312331 of 4 August 2010 and No 315653 of 13 October 2010, and any other related and/or prior acts and, in the alternative, to remit the applications to the Secretary General of the European Parliament for a fair reassessment of the sum in respect of which recovery is sought.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action in Case T-560/10;

               2.

               Orders Riccardo Nencini to pay the costs in Case T-560/10, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings;

               3.

               Orders Case T-431/10 to be removed from the register;

               4.

               Orders each party to bear their own costs in Case T-431/10, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case C-261/12 P: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 January 2013 — Annunziata Del Prete v Giorgio Armani SpA, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Reputation — Figurative sign ‘AJ AMICI JUNIOR’ — Opposition by the holder of the earlier national figurative mark AJ ARMANI JEANS and of the earlier national word mark ARMANI JUNIOR)

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/2

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 January 2013 — Annunziata Del Prete v Giorgio Armani SpA, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-261/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Reputation - Figurative sign ‘AJ AMICI JUNIOR’ - Opposition by the holder of the earlier national figurative mark AJ ARMANI JEANS and of the earlier national word mark ARMANI JUNIOR)
   2013/C 79/03
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Annunziata Del Prete (represented by: R. Bocchini, avvocato)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Giorgio Armani SpA (represented by: M. Rapisardi, avvocato), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and F. Mattina, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 March 2012 in Case T-420/10 Armani v OHIM, by which the General Court annulled the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2010 concerning opposition proceedings between Giorgio Armani SpA and Annunziata Del Prete (Case R 1360/2009-2) — Likelihood of confusion — Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               Annunziata Del Prete shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.


title: Case C-310/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hovioikeus (Finland) lodged on 30 June 2014  — Nike European Operations Netherlands BV v Sportland Oy, in liquidation

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hovioikeus (Finland) lodged on 30 June 2014 — Nike European Operations Netherlands BV v Sportland Oy, in liquidation
   (Case C-310/14)
   2014/C 292/24
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Helsingin hovioikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nike European Operations Netherlands BV

      Defendant: Sportland Oy, in liquidation

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 13 of the Insolvency Regulation (1) to be interpreted to the effect that ‘the act in the relevant case’ means that the act is not capable of being challenged after taking account of all the circumstances of the case?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is affirmative and if the party affected by the application to challenge the act has relied on a provision of the law within the meaning of the first indent of Article 13, according to which the payment of a due debt may be challenged only in the circumstances provided for therein, which are not mentioned in the action based on the law of the State in which the insolvency proceedings are taking place,

                           (i)

                           are there reasons prohibiting an interpretation of Article 13 to the effect that the party seeking to challenge the act must, after becoming aware of that legal provision, plead those circumstances if, in accordance with the national law of the State of the opening of insolvency proceedings, that party has to plead all the circumstances founding the action to challenge the act, or

                           (ii)

                           must the party affected by action to challenge the act show that those circumstances did not exist and that therefore it is not possible to challenge the act under the provision in question, and the party seeking to challenge it does not need to rely specifically on those circumstances?

               3.

               Regardless of the answer to question 2(i), is Article 13 to be interpreted as meaning that

                           (i)

                           the party affected by the action to challenge the act has the burden of proving that the circumstances provided for in the provision do not exist in the specific case, or

                           (ii)

                           may the burden of proof as to the existence of those circumstances be determined in accordance with the law of a Member State other than the State in which the insolvency proceedings were opened that is applicable to the act and which provides that the party challenging the act has the burden of proof, or

                           (iii)

                           may Article 13 be also be interpreted in such a way that the issue of the burden of proof is determined in accordance with the national law of the State of the court seised?

               4.

               Is Article 13 to be interpreted as meaning that ‘that law does not allow any means of challenging that act in the relevant case’ includes general provisions and principles of the law applicable to the act in addition to the insolvency rules of the law applicable to that act?

               5.

               If the answer to question 4 is affirmative,

                           (i)

                           is Article 13 to be interpreted as meaning that the party affected by the action to challenge the act must show that the law within the meaning of Article 13 does not contain any general or other provisions or principles on the basis of which it would be possible to challenge the act in light of the facts presented, and

                           (ii)

                           under Article 13, may the court, if it considers that this party has adduced sufficient evidence, rule that the other party must establish the existence of a provision or principle of the bankruptcy law or general law of a Member State other than the State of the opening of insolvency proceedings within the meaning of Article 13 which is applicable to the act and on the basis of which that act may indeed be challenged?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1)


title: Case C-497/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 18 October 2010 — Barbara Mercredi v Richard Chaffe

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 18 October 2010 — Barbara Mercredi v Richard Chaffe
   (Case C-497/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/45
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Barbara Mercredi

      Defendants: Richard Chaffe

      Questions referred

               1.

               Please clarify the appropriate test for determining the habitual residence of a child for the purpose of:

                           (a)

                           Article 8 of EC Regulation 2201/2003 (1)

                           (b)

                           Article 10 of EC Regulation 2201/2003

               2.

               Is a Court an ‘institution or other body’ to which rights of custody can be attributed for the purposes of the provisions of EC Regulation 2201/2003?

               3.

               Does Article 10 have a continuing application after the courts of the requested Member State have rejected an application for the return of the child under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention on the basis that Articles 3 and 5 are not made out?
               In particular, how should a conflict between a determination of the requested state that the requirements of Articles 3 and 5 of the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention are not met and a determination of the requesting state that the requirements of Articles 3 and 5 are met be resolved?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000
   OJ L 338, p. 1


title: Joined Cases C-347/13 and C-353/13: Order of the President of Court of 24 February 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Erich Pickert (C-347/13), Jürgen Hein (C-353/13), Hjördis Hein (C-353/13) v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/24

         Order of the President of Court of 24 February 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Erich Pickert (C-347/13), Jürgen Hein (C-353/13), Hjördis Hein (C-353/13) v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Joined Cases C-347/13 and C-353/13) (1)

   2014/C 184/39
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the cases be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case T-72/06: Action brought on  23 February 2006  — Groupe Gascogne v Commission

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/30

         Action brought on 23 February 2006 — Groupe Gascogne v Commission
   (Case T-72/06)
   (2006/C 96/49)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Groupe Gascogne (Saint-Paul-lès-Dax, France) (represented by: C. Lazarus, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               primarily, set aside Articles 1(k), 2(i) and 4(12) of the decision in so far as they are addressed to Groupe Gascogne and imposed a fine on it, and amend Article 2(i) of the decision in so far as it imposes on Sachsa, contrary to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62 and Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, a fine in excess of 10 % of its turnover;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside Article 2(i) of the decision;

               —

               in the further alternative, amend Article 2(i) of the decision and reduce the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on Sachsa and Groupe Gascogne;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) by which the Commission decided that the undertakings to which that decision was addressed, which included the applicant, breached Article 81 EC by engaging in agreements or concerted practices in the industrial bags sector in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, France and Spain. In the part of its decision which relates to the applicant, the Commission adjudged it to be jointly and severally liable with Sachsa Verpackung GmbH for the breach by reason of its status as parent company of Sachsa Verpackung. In the alternative, the applicant seeks annulment solely of Article 2(i), which imposes a fine on it, and, in the further alternative, the amendment of that article so as to bring about a reduction in the fine imposed.
   In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.
   By the first plea, which is put forward as the principal plea, the applicant submits that the Commission breached the provisions of Article 81(1) EC by incorrectly attributing to it joint and several liability for the practices engaged in by Sachsa and by holding it jointly and severally liable for payment of the fine imposed on Sachsa.
   By its second plea, put forward by way of alternative submission, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law by misconstruing the notion of 'undertaking' within the meaning of Article 81 EC and, as a result, imposing on it a fine calculated on the basis of the consolidated turnover of Groupe Gascogne, whereas, according to the applicant, it ought to have based itself on the aggregate corporate turnover of Groupe Gascogne and Sachsa, having failed to set out reasons as to why the other subsidiaries of Groupe Gascogne ought to be included within ‘the undertaking’ liable in respect of the practices of Sachsa adjudged anti-competitive in the contested decision.
   By its third plea, put forward as a further alternative, the applicant contends that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality by imposing an allegedly excessive fine on Sachsa and Groupe Gascogne jointly and severally, in particular by failing to ensure that there was a reasonable relation between the penalty imposed and the actual turnover achieved by Groupe Gascogne within the plastic bags sector.


title: Case T-179/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Zitro IP v OHIM — Show Ball Informática (BINGO SHOWALL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BINGO SHOWALL — Earlier figurative Community trade mark SHOW BALL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Zitro IP v OHIM — Show Ball Informática (BINGO SHOWALL)
   (Case T-179/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BINGO SHOWALL - Earlier figurative Community trade mark SHOW BALL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 160/35
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Show Ball Informática Ltda (São Paulo, Brazil)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 February 2010 (Case R 666/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Zitro IP Sàrl and Show Ball Informática Ltda

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Zitro IP Sàrl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Case F-28/08: Action brought on 28 February 2008 — Pouzol v Court of Auditors

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/35

         Action brought on 28 February 2008 — Pouzol v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-28/08)
   (2008/C 116/68)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Michel Pouzol (Combaillaux, France) (represented by: D. Grisay, I. Andoulsi and D. Piccininno, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Court of Auditors
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   First, annulment of the Court of Auditors' decision of 29 November 2007, as well as the proposals made to the applicant on 10 May 2007 concerning the transfer of his pension rights acquired in France and, consequently, recognition of the applicant's entitlement to an additional 6 years, 10 months and 1 day of pensionable service, making an overall entitlement of 10 years, 3 months and 24 days of pensionable service, to be reflected in an addition to his pension. Secondly, an order that the defendant pay compensation for the financial and non-material loss suffered by the applicant.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Court of Auditors' decision of 29 November 2007 and the proposals made to the applicant on 10 May 2007;

               —

               recognise the applicant's entitlement to an additional 6 years, 10 months and 1 day of pensionable service, making an overall entitlement of 10 years, 3 months and 24 days of pensionable service;

               —

               order the Court of Auditors to reflect that entitlement to years of pensionable service by an addition to the applicant's pension of EUR 1 232,32 per month;

               —

               order the Court of Auditors to pay compensation for the financial loss suffered by the applicant, assessed to the date of lodgement of the present application at the sum of EUR 32 040,32 (that is the applicant's loss of income of EUR 1 232,32 per month from the date of his being compulsorily retired on 1 January 2006 to 1 March 2008);

               —

               order the Court of auditors to pay compensation for the non-material loss suffered by the applicant during more than 14 years, the quantum of damages to be determined later by agreement between the parties;

               —

               order the European Court of Auditors to pay the costs.


title: Case T-227/11: Action brought on 26 April 2011 — Wall v OHIM — Bluepod Media Worldwide (bluepod media)

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/18

         Action brought on 26 April 2011 — Wall v OHIM — Bluepod Media Worldwide (bluepod media)
   (Case T-227/11)
   2011/C 194/30
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wall AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bluepod Media Worldwide Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Partially annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2011 in case R 301/2010-1; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘bluepod media’, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 6099709

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 5660972 for the figurative mark ‘blue spot’, for services in classes 35, 36, 37 and 38; International trade mark registration No 880800 for the word mark ‘BlueSpot’, for services in classes 35, 37 and 38; German trade mark registration No 30472373 for the word mark ‘BlueSpot’, for services in classes 35, 37 and 38

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially allowed the appeal and partially rejected the application. Correspondingly, allowed the application in the remainder and partially rejected the opposition.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was no likelihood of confusion.


title: Case T-100/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Dextro Energy v European Commission (Consumer protection — Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health — Refusal to authorise certain claims despite the positive opinion of the EFSA — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Dextro Energy v European Commission

   (Case T-100/15) (1)

   ((Consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health - Refusal to authorise certain claims despite the positive opinion of the EFSA - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Duty to state reasons))
   (2016/C 156/54)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: M. Hagenmeyer and T. Teufer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Grünheid, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/8 of 6 January 2015 refusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ 2015 L 3, p. 6).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.


title: Case C-500/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Centrale — Sezione di Bologna (Italy) lodged on 19 October 2010 — Ufficio IVA di Piacenza v Belvedere Costruzioni Srl

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/34

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Centrale — Sezione di Bologna (Italy) lodged on 19 October 2010 — Ufficio IVA di Piacenza v Belvedere Costruzioni Srl
   (Case C-500/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/59
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Centrale — Sezione di Bologna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ufficio IVA di Piacenza

      Defendant: Belvedere Costruzioni Srl

      Question referred

   Does Article 10 of the EC Treaty, now Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 22 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, preclude [legislation such as] the legislation of the Italian State laid down in Article 3(2a) of Decree-Law No 40 of 25 March 2010, converted into Law No 73 of 22 May 2010, under which the court with jurisdiction in tax matters may not rule on the existence of an alleged tax debt which the Tax Authority has sought, in due time, to recover by appealing against an unfavourable decision and which thus in effect provides for the VAT debt at issue to be wholly waived in cases where the courts have ruled both at first instance and at the first level of appeal that such a debt does not exist, without the taxable person in favour of whom the waiver has operated having to pay even a fraction of the debt at issue?


title: Case T-417/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014  — Afar 4 v Commission

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/55

         Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Afar 4 v Commission
   (Case T-417/14)
   2014/C 253/73
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Afar 4, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera SA v Commission.


title: Case C-277/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland) — M. M. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common European Asylum System — Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for qualification for refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Article 4(1), second sentence — Cooperation of the Member State with the applicant to assess the relevant elements of his application — Scope — Lawfulness of the national procedure for processing an application for subsidiary protection following rejection of an application for refugee status — Observance of fundamental rights — Right to be heard)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland) — M. M. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General
   (Case C-277/11) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common European Asylum System - Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for qualification for refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Article 4(1), second sentence - Cooperation of the Member State with the applicant to assess the relevant elements of his application - Scope - Lawfulness of the national procedure for processing an application for subsidiary protection following rejection of an application for refugee status - Observance of fundamental rights - Right to be heard)
   2013/C 26/16
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: M. M.

      Defendants: Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Ireland — Interpretation of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12) — Application for subsidiary protection following refusal to grant refugee status — Proposal to reject application for subsidiary protection — Obligation to provide the applicant with the results of the assessment of his application before taking a final decision

      Operative part of the judgment

   The requirement that the Member State concerned cooperate with an applicant for asylum, as stated in the second sentence of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, cannot be interpreted as meaning that, where a foreign national requests subsidiary protection status after he has been refused refugee status and the competent national authority is minded to reject that second application as well, the authority is on that basis obliged — before adopting its decision — to inform the applicant that it proposes to reject his application and notify him of the arguments on which it intends to base its rejection, so as to enable him to make known his views in that regard.
   However, in the case of a system such as that established by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, a feature of which is that there are two separate procedures, one after the other, for examining applications for refugee status and applications for subsidiary protection respectively, it is for the national court to ensure observance, in each of those procedures, of the applicant’s fundamental rights and, more particularly, of the right to be heard in the sense that the applicant must be able to make known his views before the adoption of any decision that does not grant the protection requested. In such a system, the fact that the applicant has already been duly heard when his application for refugee status was examined does not mean that that procedural requirement may be dispensed with in the procedure relating to the application for subsidiary protection.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case T-408/05  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006 p. 18 )

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/46

         Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case T-408/05

            (Official Journal of the European Union C 22 of 28 January 2006, p. 18
         )

   (2006/C 48/85)
   The notice in the OJ in Case T-408/05 Luigi Marcuccio v Commission should read as follows:

         Action brought on 16 November 2005 — Luigi Marcuccio v Commission
         (Case T-408/05)
         (2006/C 22/35)
         Language of the case: Italian
         Parties

            Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: Alessandro Distante, lawyer)

            Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
         Form of order sought
         The applicant claims that the Court should:

                     —

                     annul the implied decision rejecting the request of 11 October 2004;

                     —

                     annul, so far as necessary, the decision of 4 August 2005;

                     —

                     order the defendant to pay the applicant the additional sum of EUR 381.04 needed to make up 100 % (one hundred per cent) reimbursement of medical expenses;

                     —

                     order the defendant to pay the applicant default interest at the rate of 10 % (ten per cent), with annual capitalisation from 11 October 2004 until actual payment;

                     —

                     order the Commission to pay the costs.

               Pleas in law and main arguments
         The applicant in this case objects to the defendant's refusal to reimburse 100 % of the medical expenses incurred by him.
         The pleas and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-18/04 Marcuccio v Commission. (1)

         In particular, the applicant alleges absolute failure to state reasons, manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations and of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, the duty of non-discrimination and the principle of sound administration.

      (1)  OJ C 71 of 20.3.2004, p. 38.


title: Case F-139/15: Action brought on 3 November 2015 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/38

         Action brought on 3 November 2015 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions
   (Case F-139/15)
   (2016/C 007/52)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Committee of the Regions of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Committee of the Regions by which it refused to recognise that the invalidity suffered by the applicant is occupational in origin and claim for compensation for the non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Bureau of the Committee of the Regions of 2 December 2014, served on 6 January 2015, in so far as it accepts the conclusions of the Invalidity Committee and so refuses to recognise that the invalidity suffered by the applicant is occupational in origin within the meaning of Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Committee of the Regions of 24 July 2015, served on 27 July 2015, rejecting the applicant’s claim;

               —

               Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the sum of EUR 25 000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary harm;

               —

               Order the Committee of the Regions to pay all the costs.


title: Case T-252/08: Action brought on 26 June 2008 — Tipik v Commission

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/64

         Action brought on 26 June 2008 — Tipik v Commission
   (Case T-252/08)
   (2008/C 209/114)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Tipik Communication Agency SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Gillet, L. Levi and C. Dubois, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission, the date of which is unknown, by which it was decided to reject the tender submitted by the applicant in the award procedure for the public service contract concerning, inter alia, the EUROPA Internet site (PO/2007-31/C2);

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission, the date of which is unknown, by which it was decided to award that public contract to the consortium led by the company European Service Network;

               —

               Order the defendant to indemnify the applicant for the loss suffered by reason of the adoption of those irregular decisions, which amounts to EUR 5 063 773,29, together with late-payment interest to run from the date of the judgment to be delivered by the Court of First Instance until payment in full. The rate of late-payment interest to be applied is to be calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, applicable during the period concerned, increased by three points;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the decision of the Commission to reject its tender submitted in the context of the invitation to tender for the contract entitled ‘Communication via EUROPA — the official website of the EU and other online and printed information and communication products managed by the Directorate-General Communication of the European Commission — editorial, graphical and technical and translation assistance in design, production and maintenance’ (OJ 2007/S 193-234221), and the decision to award the contract to the consortium led by European Service Network. In addition, the applicant seeks compensation for the loss allegedly caused by the errors committed by the Commission.
   In support of its action, the applicant submits, principally, that the Commission should have excluded the consortium led by European Service Network from the procedure for the award of the contract, since one of the members of that consortium had been declared to be in serious breach of its contractual obligations in respect of a contract intended for services of OPOCE similar to those which are the subject-matter of the contract at issue.
   In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission has committed a manifest error of assessment when examining the tender submitted by the consortium led by European Service Network in that it awarded to it the same mark as the applicant for the quality criterion, although it could not be certain as to the capacity of that consortium to supply satisfactory technical solutions in that regard.
   The applicant submits that those irregularities are such as to render the Commission liable since, on the one hand, it committed an error and, on the other, it seriously and manifestly disregarded the limits imposed on its discretion.


title: Case C-132/05: Action brought on 21 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/15

         Action brought on 21 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-132/05)
   (2005/C 132/28)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 March 2005, by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Eugenio De March and Sabine Grünheid, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by formally refusing to prosecute, on its territory, the use of the name ‘Parmesan’ for the labelling of products which do not conform to the specification of the protected designation of origin ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ and thus, promoting the use of the reputation of the genuine, Community-wide protected product, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 (1) on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs;

               2.

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission is of the opinion that the placing on the market on German territory of cheese, under the designation ‘Parmesan’, which does not conform to the specification of the designation ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ infringes Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, which the German authorities are obliged to prohibit of their own motion.
   Since the designation ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ is a registered protected designation of origin on the ‘list of protected geographical indications and designations of origin’ since 1996 and is, thus, protected Community-wide, the Member States have to protect this name from any misuse, imitation or evocation. This is the case even if the real place of origin of the product is stated or it is a translation of a protected name that is being used.
   The Commission contends that ‘Parmesan’ is a translation borrowed from the French for ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’. According to the Commission, ‘Parmesan’ and ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ are synonymous, as evidenced by the history of the origins of the protected name and proof in numerous reference books, ranging from 1516 to the present, which refer to the manufacturing of cheese in the particular region of origin in Italy. As a result of the registration of the protected designation of origin ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’, the geographical expressions ‘Parmigiano’ and ‘Reggiano’ enjoy Community-wide protection not only individually, but also together.
   According to the Commission, there are no valid reasons for the Federal Republic of Germany's view that the expression ‘Parmigiano’ is, when used alone, to be regarded as a generic name in the sense of Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, which the consumer does not associate with a specific geographical area.
   Since it follows from this that the use of the designation ‘Parmesan’ is reserved exclusively to producers in the specific Italian region who produce cheese according to a mandatory specification, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 by refusing to prohibit the misuse of the name ‘Parmesan’ on German territory.

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1.


title: Case T-44/07: Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Kaučuk v Commission

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/49

         Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Kaučuk v Commission
   (Case T-44/07)
   (2007/C 82/102)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Kaučuk a.s. (Kralupy nad Vltavou, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Powell and K. Kuik, solicitors)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Articles 1 to 3 of the contested decision in whole or in part insofar as they are addressed to the applicant;

               —

               alternatively, annul Article 2 of the contested decision insofar as it imposes a fine of EUR 17.55 million on Kaučuk and fix a substantially lower fine; and

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber, by which the Commission found that the applicant, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by agreeing on price targets for the products, sharing customers by non-aggression agreements and exchanging commercial information relating to prices, competitors and customers.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission:

               —

               erred in law by imputing the conduct of its sales intermediary Tavorex, an independent legal entity, to the applicant;

               —

               erred by failing to prove to the requisite legal standard that Tavorex was involved in a single and continuous infringement from November 1999 until November 2002;

               —

               committed a manifest error of appreciation by finding the same facts sufficient to prove Tavorex's involvement but insufficient to prove the involvement of another producer;

               —

               erred in law by applying EC competition law to the applicant and Tavorex without establishing a sufficient connection between the applicant/Tavorex, the activity concerned and the territory of the European Communities contrary to the case law on extraterritorial application of EC competition law;

               —

               committed a manifest error of law and appreciation in finding that the applicant, through Tavorex, committed an infringement regarding butadiene rubber, a product the applicant neither produces nor sells;

               —

               failed to establish, for the purposes of setting the fine, whether the applicant, through Tavorex, committed the infringement intentionally or negligently; and

               —

               committed a manifest error of law and appreciation by failing to apply its Fining Guidelines.


title: Case T-427/08: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2010 — CEAHR v Commission (Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Abuse of dominant position — Decision rejecting a complaint — Refusal of Swiss watch producers to supply spare parts to independent watch repairers — Community interest — Relevant market — Primary market and after market — Duty to give reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2010 — CEAHR v Commission
   (Case T-427/08) (1)

   (Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Abuse of dominant position - Decision rejecting a complaint - Refusal of Swiss watch producers to supply spare parts to independent watch repairers - Community interest - Relevant market - Primary market and after market - Duty to give reasons - Manifest error of assessment)
   2011/C 38/16
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Confédération européenne des associations d’horlogers-réparateurs (CEAHR) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Mathijsen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, and subsequently by F. Ronkes Agerbeek and F. Castilla Contreras, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Richemont International SA (Bellevue, Switzerland) (represented by J. Ysewyn, lawyer, and H. Crossley, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3600 of 10 July 2008 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant in Case COMP/E-l/39097

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2008) 3600 of 10 July 2008 in Case COMP/E-1/39097;

               2.

               Orders Richemont International SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Confédération européenne des associations d’horlogers-réparateurs (CEAHR) as a result of the intervention;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, the remainder of those incurred by the CEAHR.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case F-11/06: Action brought on  31 January 2006  — Larsen v Commission

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/36

         Action brought on 31 January 2006 — Larsen v Commission
   (Case F-11/06)
   (2006/C 74/70)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Holger Larsen (London, United Kingdom) and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of 2 March 2005 made by the Director of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements to reduce the applicant's remuneration from 1 May 2005;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant the rent allowance to which he is entitled, since the day on which it ceased to be paid to him, together with compensatory interest calculated at a rate two points above the central rate of the European Central Bank;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official assigned to the Commission Representation Office in London, received from 1 October 2002 a rent allowance under Article 14a of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and Regulation No 6/66/Euratom and No 121/66/EEC (1). That article was repealed when the Staff Regulations were reformed and so the Commission, by decision of 2 May 2005, withdrew that allowance from the applicant.
   In support of his action, the applicant first alleges the infringement of Article 62 of the Staff Regulations and Article 19 of Annex XIII thereto. He points out, in particular, that the defendant was wrong to apply the latter article in accordance with the interpretation adopted by the Heads of Administration on 14 October 2004, which excludes the rent allowance from the remuneration covered by the transitional measures laid down in that article. Such an interpretation is unlawful, inasmuch as it reduces the scope of the net income guarantee referred to by the provision in question.
   In addition, the applicant contends that the contested decision infringes the principle of the equivalent purchasing power of officials, as prescribed by Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations.

      (1)  Regulation No 6/66/Euratom, 121/66/EEC of the Councils of 28 July 1966 laying down the list of places for which a rent allowance may be granted, the maximum amount of that allowance and the rules for granting it, OJ, English Special Edition 1965-6 (1), p. 212.


title: Case T-257/05: Action brought on  12 July 2005  — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/25

         Action brought on 12 July 2005 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM
   (Case T-257/05)
   (2005/C 296/55)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Gaedertz, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Forms of order sought

               —

               The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 2 May 2005 in appeal proceedings R 0620/2004-2; re-establish the applicant's rights (restitutio in integrum) in accordance with Article 78 of the Community trade mark regulation.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark sought: The word mark ‘t’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 39 and 41 — Registration No 2 893 865.

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal to register.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the application to re-establish the applicant's rights and dismissal of its appeal.

      Pleas in law: The refusal to re-establish the applicant's rights in the appeal proceedings is unlawful since it is incorrect that the office organisation of the applicant's lawyers does not satisfy the requirements of Article 78(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark.


C 302/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                21.10.2000
       Removal from the register of Case C-163/98 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-341/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/44)                                                      (2000/C 302/48)
By order of 19 May 2000, the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 13 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-163/98: Commission of the European            the register of Case C-341/99 (reference for a preliminary
Communities v Eyckeler & Malt AG.                                    ruling from Landesgerich Korneuburg): SEIKO Kabushiki Kai-
                                                                     sha v Rashad Wali.
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-460/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-450/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/45)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/49)
By order of 25 May 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             By order of 13 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-460/99: Commission of the European            of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Communities v French Republic.                                       the register of Case C-450/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg): SEIKO Kabushiki
                                                                     Kaisha v Bajrami Sinavere.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-78/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-432/00 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/46)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/50)
By order of 9 June 2000, the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has              By order of 22 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-78/99:               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.            the register of Case C-432/99: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-183/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-452/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/47)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/51)
By order of 13 June 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-183/99 (Reference for a preliminary           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Hugo Boss v Trigavina         the register of Case C-452/99: Commission of the European
in Storitve D.O.O.                                                   Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                           (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.


title: Case C-345/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Tax legislation — Conditions for exemption of capital gains arising on the transfer for valuable consideration of real property — Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC — Articles 28 and 31 of the Agreement establishing the European Economic Area — Cohesion of the tax system — Housing policy)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/18

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-345/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Tax legislation - Conditions for exemption of capital gains arising on the transfer for valuable consideration of real property - Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC - Articles 28 and 31 of the Agreement establishing the European Economic Area - Cohesion of the tax system - Housing policy)
   (2006/C 326/35)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes and J. Menezes Leitão, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 18 EC, 39 EC, 43 EC and 56(1) EC and of Articles 28, 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement –National provisions making exemption from capital gains tax arising on the transfer for valuable consideration of real property used as the permanent residence of a taxable person or of his family subject to the condition that such gains are reinvested in the purchase of real property in national territory
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by maintaining in force fiscal provisions, such as Article 10(5) of the Personal Income Tax Code, making entitlement to exemption from tax on capital gains arising from the transfer for valuable consideration of real property intended for the taxable person's own and permanent residence or for that of a member of his family subject to the condition that the gains realised should be reinvested in the purchase of real property situated in Portuguese territory, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC, and under Articles 28 and 31 of the European Economic Area Agreement of 2 May 1992;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 1997 in Case C-165/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): The Queen v. Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte: Benjamin Lay, Donald Gage and David Gage (Additional levy on milk - Special reference quantity - Transfer of part of a mixed holding - Apportionment of the quota between transferor and transferee)

text:
6 . 12 . 97           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 370/ 1
                                                                 I
                                                          (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                               transferee, in proportion to the part of the holding directly
                        (Sixth Chamber)                             or indirectly given over to dairy production at the time
                                                                    when the non-marketing undertaking was entered into
                      of 16 October 1997                            pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of
                                                                    17 May 1977 introducing a system of premiums for the
in Case C-l 65/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from          non-marketing of milk and milk products and for the
the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): The             conversion of dairy herds.
Queen v. Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex
   parte: Benjamin Lay, Donald Gage and David Gage (')
                                                                    (■) OJ C 189 , 22 . 7. 1995 .
(Additional levy on milk — Special reference quantity —
Transfer of part of a mixed holding — Apportionment of
          the quota between transferor and transferee)
                         ( 97/C 370/01 )
                                                                    Action brought on 13 October 1997 by the Kingdom of
                 (Language of the case: English)                      Spain against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-349/97)
In Case C-l 65195 : reference to the Court under Article 177                                   ( 97/C 370/02 )
of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice, Queen's
Bench Division (United Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between The            An action against the Commission of the European
Queen and Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex            Communities was brought before the Court of Justice on
parte: Benjamin Lay, Donald Gage and David Gage — on                13 October 1997 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented by
the interpretation of Articles 1 (2) and 2 of Council               Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del Estado, acting as
Regulation ( EEC) No 2055/93 of 19 July 1993 allocating             Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
a special reference quantity to certain producers of milk           Spanish Embassy, 4—6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.
and milk products ( OJ L 187, 29. 7. 1993, p. 8 ) — The
Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,                 The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should :
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and G. Hirsch
(Rapporteur), Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General; L.
                                                                    — annul Commission Decision 97/608/EC of 30 July
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                   1997 H amending Decision 97/333/EC on the
judgment on 16 October 1997, in which it has ruled:
                                                                         clearance of the accounts presented by the Member
                                                                         States in respect of the expenditure for 1993 of the
 On a proper construction of Articles 1 (2) and 2 of                     Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural and
 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2055/93 of 19 July 1993                     Guidance Fund ( EAGGF), as regards the financial
allocating a special reference quantity to certain producers             corrections imposed on the Kingdom of Spain and
of milk and milk products, where part of a mixed holding                 examined in the application, and
is transferred, the reference quantity must be apportioned
between the transferor and transferee, or allocated to the          — order the Commission to pay the costs.