title: Case C-367/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) by order of that court of 21 September 1999 in the case of Hugo BOSS Aktiengesellschaft v Coalle FA-93

text:
C 352/28                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.12.1999
Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December 1998                 Action brought on 4 October 1999 by the Commission
(G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary supplement)                         of the European Communities against Ireland
compatible with Community law, in particular with Articles 10
and 12 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, inasmuch                                       (Case C-370/99)
as it provides that the administrative charge is payable at a flat
annual rate for registration of ‘other company documents’ for                                       (1999/C 352/46)
each of the years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of
the sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and
partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for private                 An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
limited companies?                                                         Justice of the European Communities on 4 October 1999 by
                                                                           the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                           by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser, and by Manuel Desantes, a
Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with Com-                     national expert seconded to its Legal Service, with an address
munity law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on the sums              for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the sum provided for             Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg,
by Article 11(1) should be calculated according to the legal               Luxembourg.
rate in force at the date on which that Law entered into force
(2,5 % per annum) and not according to the rate provided for
by Article 5 with respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of                     The Applicant claims that the Court should:
26 January 1961, as subsequently amended?
                                                                           — find that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
                                                                               administrative provisions necessary to comply with Euro-
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (11), p. 412.                             pean Parliament and Council Directive 96/9/EC of
                                                                               11 March 1996 concerning the legal protection of databas-
                                                                               es (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                               said Directive, and
                                                                           — order Ireland to bear the costs of this procedure.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
Korneuburg (Austria) by order of that court of 21 Sep-
tember 1999 in the case of Hugo BOSS Aktiengesellschaft                    Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
                           v Coalle FA-93                                  a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                           upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
                                                                           on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
                          (Case C-367/99)                                  laid down in the directive. That period expired on 1 January
                                                                           1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary
                          (1999/C 352/45)                                  to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
                                                                           the Commission.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht                         (1) OJ L 77 of 27.3.1996, p. 20.
(Regional Court) Korneuburg (Austria) of 21 September 1999,
received at the Court Registry on 4 October 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Hugo BOSS Aktiengesellschaft
v Coalle FA-93 on the following question:
On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of                   Action brought on 6 October 1999 by the Commission
counterfeit and pirated goods (Official Journal of the European            of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Communities L 341 of 30 December 1994) also applicable to
situations in which goods of the type specified therein are, in                                     (Case C-372/99)
the course of transit between two countries not belonging to
the European Community, temporarily detained by the cus-
toms authorities in a Member State on the basis of that                                             (1999/C 352/47)
regulation, at the request of a holder of rights who claims that
his rights have been infringed and whose undertaking has                   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
its registered office in a Member State of the European                    Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 October
Community?                                                                 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                           Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                           of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-422/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — SACEM v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Proof — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — SACEM v Commission
   (Case T-422/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)
   2013/C 156/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Société des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs de musique (SACEM) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: H. Calvet, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and E. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: The French Republic (represented initially by G. de Bergues, E. Belliard and A.-L. Vendrolini, then by G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents); and Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Allendesalazar Corcho, R. Vallina Hoset and P. Hernández Arroyo, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Uusitalo and L. Rechardt, lawyers); RTL Group SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); CLT-UFA (Luxembourg); Music Choice Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom); ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG (Unterföhring, Germany); Modern Times Group MTG AB (Stockholm, Sweden); Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (London); and Verband Privater Rundfunk und Telemedien eV (VPRT) (Berlin, Germany) (represented initially by M. Hansen, É. Barbier de La Serre, lawyers, and O. Zafar, solicitor, then M. Hansen, J. Ruiz Calzado, A. Weitbrecht, lawyers, and J. Kallaugher, solicitor)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Rejects the European Commission’s request for measures of organisation of procedure;

               2.

               Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns SACEM;

               3.

               Annuls Article 4(2) and (3) of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final, to the extent that they refer to Article 3 of that decision, in so far as they concern SACEM;

               4.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               5.

               Orders SACEM to bear half of its own costs, with the exception of the costs occasioned by the interventions in support of the Commission;

               6.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs;

               7.

               Orders Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE) to bear half of its own costs;

               8.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs, to pay half of those incurred by SACEM, with the exception of the costs occasioned by the interventions in support of the Commission, and to pay half of those incurred by SGAE;

               9.

               Orders the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by SACEM in connection with IFPI’s intervention;

               10.

               Orders RTL Group SA, CLT-UFA, Music Choice Europe Ltd, ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG, Modern Times Group MTG AB, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd and Verband Privater Rundfunk und Telemedien eV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by SACEM in connection with their interventions;

               11.

               Orders SACEM, the Commission, RTL Group, CLT-UFA and Music Choice Europe to each bear their own costs relating to the interim relief proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


title: Case C-390/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 20 August 2012 — 1. Robert Pfleger and Others

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 20 August 2012 — 1. Robert Pfleger and Others
   (Case C-390/12)
   2012/C 343/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Robert Pfleger, Autoart a.s., Mladen Vucicevic, Maroxx Software GmbH, Hans-Jörg Zehetner

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 56 TFEU and in Articles 15 to 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights preclude national legislation like the relevant provisions in the main proceedings, Paragraphs 3 to 5 and Paragraphs 14 and 21 of the GSpG, which permits the organisation of games of chance using machines only on the condition — which may be enforced by both criminal penalties and direct intervention — of the prior issue of a licence, which is available only in limited numbers, even though — as far as can be seen — the State has not shown thus far in a single judicial or administrative procedure that associated crime and/or addiction to gambling actually constitute a significant problem which cannot be remedied by a controlled expansion of authorised gaming activities to a large number of individual providers, but only by a controlled expansion, coupled with only moderate advertising, by one monopoly holder (or a small number of oligopolists)?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is to be answered in the negative: Does the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 56 TFEU and in Articles 15 to 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights preclude national legislation like Paragraphs 52 to 54 of the GSpG, Paragraph 56a of the GSpG and Paragraph 168 of the StGB by which, as a result of imprecise legal definitions, there is almost complete criminal liability, even for various forms of only very remotely involved (possibly resident in other European Union Member States) persons (such as the mere sellers or lessors of gaming machines)?

               3.

               In the event that the second question is also to be answered in the negative: Do the requirements relating to democracy and the rule of law on which Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is clearly based and/or the requirement of fairness and efficiency under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or the obligation of transparency under Article 56 TFEU and/or the right not to be tried or punished twice under Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights preclude national rules like Paragraphs 52 to 54 of the GSpG, Paragraph 56a of the GSpG and Paragraph 168 of the StGB, the delimitation between which is not really foreseeable or predictable ex ante for a citizen, in the absence of clear legislative provision, and can be clarified in each specific case only through an expensive formal procedure, but which are associated with extensive differences in terms of competences (administrative authority or court), powers of intervention, the connected stigmatisation in each case and procedural position (e.g. reversal of the burden of proof)?

               4.

               In the event that one of the first three questions is to be answered in the affirmative: Does Article 56 TFEU and/or Articles 15 to 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights preclude the punishment of persons who have one of the close connections with a gaming machine mentioned in Paragraph 2(1)(1) and Paragraph 2(2) of the GSpG and/or the seizure or confiscation of such machines and/or the closure of the entire undertaking owned by such persons?


title: Judgment of the Court of 21 September 1999 in Case C-124/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vaasan Hovioikeus): Markku Juhani Läärä, Cotswold Microsystems Ltd, Oy Transatlantic Software Ltd v Kihlakunnansyyttäjä (Jyväskylä), Suomen Valtio (Finnish State) (Freedom to provide services — Exclusive operating rights — Slot machines)

text:
8.1.2000                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 6/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 21 September 1999                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 21 September 1999
in Case C-124/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Vaasan Hovioikeus): Markku Juhani Läärä, Cotswold
Microsystems Ltd, Oy Transatlantic Software Ltd v Kih-                      in Case C-44/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
lakunnansyyttäjä (Jyväskylä), Suomen Valtio (Finnish                        the Bundespatentgericht): BASF AG v Präsident des
                              State) (1)                                                         Deutschen Patentamts (1)
(Freedom to provide services — Exclusive operating rights                   (Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent
                         — Slot machines)                                   effect — European patent ruled void ab initio for failure to
                                                                                file a translation)
                           (2000/C 6/04)
                                                                                (2000/C 6/05)
                   (Language of the case: Finnish)                                             (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                               in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-124/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               In Case C-44/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Vaasan                          the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundespatentge-
Hovioikeus for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending              richt, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
before that court between Markku Juhani Läärä, Cotswold                     pending before that court between BASF AG and Präsident des
Microsystems Ltd, Oy Transatlantic Software Ltd and Kihlakun-               Deutschen Patentamts — on the interpretation of Articles 30
nansyyttäjä (Jyväskylä), Suomen Valtio (Finnish State) — on                 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28
the interpretation of the judgment of the Court of Justice of               EC and 30 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
24 March 1994 in Case C-275/92 Schindler [1994] ECR                         J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann, J.C. Moitin-
I-1039 and of Articles 30, 36, 56 and 59 of the EC Treaty                   ho de Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and D.A.O. Edward,
(now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC, 30 EC, 46 EC and 49                  Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) — the               Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Court, composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Fourth                 21 September 1999, in which it has ruled:
and Sixth Chambers, acting for the President, J.-P. Puissochet
(Rapporteur) and P. Jann (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gul-
mann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón                   Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC)
and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General;                   does not preclude the application of provisions such as Article II(3)
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                   of the Gesetz über internationale Patentübereinkommen, according to
judgment on 21 September 1999, in which it has ruled:                       which a patent granted by the European Patent Office with effect in
                                                                            a Member State which is drafted in a language other than the official
                                                                            language of that Member State is to be deemed void ab initio if the
                                                                            patent holder does not file with the patent office of the Member State
The Treaty provisions relating to freedom to provide services do not
                                                                            in question a translation of the patent specification in the official
preclude national legislation such as the Finnish legislation which
                                                                            language of that Member State within three months of the publication
grants to a single public body exclusive rights to operate slot
                                                                            in the European Patent Bulletin of the mention of the grant of the
machines, in view of the public interest objectives which justify it.
                                                                            patent.
(1) OJ No C 166 of 31.5.1997.
                                                                            (1) OJ No C 137 of 2.5.1998.


title: Case C-501/01: Action brought on 24 December 2001 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
6.4.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 84/49
Action brought on 17 December 2001 by the Commission                     Communities on 24 December 2001 by the Kingdom of the
of the European Communities against the United                           Netherlands, represented by H.G. van Sevenster, C.M. Wissels
                             Kingdom                                     and J. van Bakel, acting as Agents.
                         (Case C-489/01)
                          (2002/C 84/84)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should: annul the contested
                                                                         decision (1) in so far as the Community financial contribution
                                                                         fixed for the eradication of classical swine fever in the
                                                                         Netherlands in 1998 represents a reduction of 25 % in
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the              the compensation paid to livestock farmers, and order the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 December              Commission to pay the costs.
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Ms Christina Tufvesson, acting as agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply, as regards
      the territory of Gibraltar, with Directive 97/9/EC (1) of the      —     Incorrect factual basis: none of the six files selected by the
      European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997                   Commission contains any mention of any irregularities
      on investor-compensations schemes, or, in any case, by                   which might be of a repetitive and systematic nature and
      not notifying these measures to the Commission, the                      which might form the factual basis for the imposition of
      United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under                a reduction.
      Article 15 of this Directive;
2)    order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                         —     Infringement of the law: Council Decision 90/424/EEC
                                                                               on expenditure in the veterinary field (2) makes no
                                                                               provision for the application of a general reduction. The
                                                                               concept of ‘adequate’ compensation (seventh indent in
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                               Article 3(2) of Decision 90/424/EEC) is not defined in
                                                                               Directive 80/217/EEC or in Decision 90/424/EEC or
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to                 anywhere else in Community law. The Commission’s
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by                  assertion that, in the application of the concept of
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the                  adequate compensation as interpreted by the Netherlands,
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period                  too high a value was placed on swine, disregards the
expired on 26 September 1998 without the United Kingdom                        content and scope of the applicable Netherlands rules.
having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the                     In addition, the Commission incorrectly ignores the
directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission, as                 discretionary power in the matter which is enshrined in
regards the territory of Gibraltar.                                            the Community rules.
(1) OJ L 84, 26.3.1997, p. 22.                                           —     Violation of the principle of proportionality.
                                                                         —     Violation of the principle of legal certainty.
                                                                         —     Non-compliance with the obligation to provide a state-
Action brought on 24 December 2001 by the Kingdom of                           ment of reasons.
the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                         (Case C-501/01)                                 (1) Commission Decision 2001/739/EC of 17 October 2001 on the
                                                                             total amount of Community aid for the eradication of classical
                                                                             swine fever in the Netherlands in 1998.
                          (2002/C 84/85)                                 (2) OJ 1990 L 224, p. 19.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European


title: Case T-116/12: Order of the General Court of 20 September 2012 — Tioxide Europe and Others v Council

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/38

         Order of the General Court of 20 September 2012 — Tioxide Europe and Others v Council
   (Case T-116/12) (1)

   2012/C 355/82
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.


title: Case T-353/15: Action brought on 26 June 2015 — NeXovation v Commission

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/50

         Action brought on 26 June 2015 — NeXovation v Commission
   (Case T-353/15)
   (2015/C 311/55)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: NeXovation, Inc. (Hendersonville, USA) (represented by: A. von Bergwelt, F. Henkel and M. Nordmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               partially annul the decision C(2014) 3634 final of the European Commission of 1 October 2014 (in the form of the corrigendum decision of 13 April 2015) on the State aid SA.31550 implemented by Germany for Nürburgring, in so far as:

               —

               it comes to the decision that the sale of assets of Nürburgring GmbH, Motorsport Resort Nürburgring GmbH and Congress- und Motorsport Hotel Nürburgring GmbH does not constitute State aid as stated in the first bullet point of recital 285 of the contested decision;

               —

               it comes to the decision that the sale of assets of Nürburgring GmbH, Motorsport Resort Nürburgring GmbH and Congress- und Motorsport Hotel Nürburgring GmbH does not lead to economic continuity between Nürburgring GmbH, Motorsport Resort Nürburgring GmbH and Congress- und Motorsport Hotel Nürburgring GmbH and Capricorn NÜRBURGRING Besitzgesellschaft GmbH, the new owner of the assets, or its subsidiaries as stated in the first sentence of the second bullet of recital 285 of the contested decision;

               —

               it thus comes to the decision that any potential recovery of incompatible State aid will not concern Capricorn NÜRBURGRING Besitzgesellschaft GmbH, the buyer of the assets sold following the tender process, or its subsidiaries as stated in Article 3(2) of the operative part of the contested decision, following the second sentence of the second bullet point of recital 285 of the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contests the Commission decision of 1 October 2014 (with a corrigendum of 13 April 2015) as it decides that the sale of the assets of the Nürburgring complex does not constitute State aid, that the sale of the assets does not lead to a financial/economic continuity between the sellers and the acquirer of the assets and that any potential recovery of incompatible State aid will not concern the buyer of the assets.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an erroneous application of Article 107(1) TFUE by the Commission as the Commission misunderstood the meaning of an open, transparent and non-discriminatory tender procedure with the sale to the highest bidder and further failed to investigate the State involvement in the sale process appropriately;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an erroneous application of Article 107(1) TFUE by the Commission when it comes to the conclusion that the temporary lease contract of the ring’s asset does not lead to State aid and that the sellers did not illegitimately influence the further sale of the assets to a Russian investor;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an erroneous application of the principle of financial/economic continuity by the Commission;

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to initiate a formal investigation procedure by the Commission;

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s rights under Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999 by the Commission;

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principles of an impartial and diligent investigation by the Commission;

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging an erroneous application of Article 296(2) TFUE by the Commission.


title: Case T-82/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (TRIPLE EVOLUTION) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative EU trade mark TRIPLE EVOLUTION — Earlier EU word mark Evolution — Relative ground of refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (TRIPLE EVOLUTION)
   (Case T-82/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative EU trade mark TRIPLE EVOLUTION - Earlier EU word mark Evolution - Relative ground of refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 086/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Qormi, Malta) (represented initially by M. Garayalde Niño and A. Alpera Plazas, and subsequently by M. Garayalde Niño, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2015 (Case R 0725/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between adp Gauselmann and International Gaming Projects.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders International Gaming Projects Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.


title: Case C-429/10 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2011 — X Technology Swiss GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeals — Community trade mark — Sign consisting of the partial colouring of a product — Orange colouring of the toe of a sock — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(b))

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/11

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2011 — X Technology Swiss GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-429/10 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Community trade mark - Sign consisting of the partial colouring of a product - Orange colouring of the toe of a sock - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b))
   2011/C 252/20
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: X Technology Swiss GmbH (represented by: A. Herbertz and R. Jung, Rechtsanwälte)

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

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 June 2010 in Case T-547/08 X Technology Swiss v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2008 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision, which refused registration of the sign consisting of the orange colouring of the toe of a sock as a Community trade mark for goods in Class 25 — Distinctive character of a sign consisting of the partial colouring of a product

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               X Technology Swiss GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case C-284/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven Administrativen Sad na Republika Balgaria lodged on 8 June 2011 — EMS Bulgaria TRANSPORT OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia po Prihodite gr. Plovdiv

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven Administrativen Sad na Republika Balgaria lodged on 8 June 2011 — EMS Bulgaria TRANSPORT OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia po Prihodite gr. Plovdiv
   (Case C-284/11)
   2011/C 238/12
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven Administrativen Sad na Republika Balgaria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: EMS Bulgaria TRANSPORT OOD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia po Prihodite gr. Plovdiv

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 179(1), 180 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of effectiveness in the field of indirect taxation, which is discussed in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-95/07 and C-96/07 Ecotrade, to be interpreted as permitting an exclusion period such as that in the present case under Article 72(1) of the Law on value added tax (2008 version), which period was extended — under Section 18 of the transitional and concluding provisions of the Law amending and complementing the Law on value added tax — until the end of April 2009 only for recipients of supplies who became taxable before 1 January 2009, taking into account the circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings, that is to say:

                           —

                           the requirement under national law that a person who has made an intra-Community acquisition and who is not registered under the Law on value added tax register voluntarily as a precondition for exercising the right to deduct input VAT, even though that person does not meet the conditions for compulsory registration;

                           —

                           the new rule under Article 73a of the Law on value added tax (in force since 1 January 2009) whereby the right to deduct input value added tax is to be granted irrespective of whether the time-limit under Article 72(1) of the Law on value added tax was complied with, if the tax is chargeable to the recipient of the supply, provided the supply was not concealed and is documented in the accounts;

                           —

                           the subsequent amendment of Article 72(1) of the Law on value added tax (in force since 1 January 2010), whereby the right to deduct input value added tax may be exercised during the tax period in which that right arose or in one of the subsequent twelve tax periods?

               2.

               Is the principle of tax neutrality as a fundamental principle, which is of importance for the establishment and functioning of the common system of value added tax, to be interpreted as meaning that a tax assessment practice such as that at issue in the main proceedings — which acknowledges the late charging of value added tax, levies interest as a penalty and imposes an additional penalty of denial of the right to deduct input value added tax — is permissible in the actual circumstances of the appellant’s case, taking into account the fact that the transaction was not concealed, it was documented in the accounts, the tax authorities had the necessary information, no abuse occurred and the budget was not adversely affected?


title: Case C-612/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — ClientEarth v European Commission (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions of the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Third indent of Article 4(2) — Environmental information — Aarhus Convention — Article 4(1) and (4) — Exception to right of access — Protection of the purpose of investigations — Studies carried out by an undertaking, at the request of the European Commission, concerning the transposition of directives on the environment — Partial refusal of access)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — ClientEarth v European Commission
   (Case C-612/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions of the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Third indent of Article 4(2) - Environmental information - Aarhus Convention - Article 4(1) and (4) - Exception to right of access - Protection of the purpose of investigations - Studies carried out by an undertaking, at the request of the European Commission, concerning the transposition of directives on the environment - Partial refusal of access))
   (2015/C 311/04)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: ClientEarth (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin, P. Costa de Oliveira and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by J. Rodrigues and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by M. Moore, M. Simm and A. Jensen, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in ClientEarth v Commission (T-111/11, EU:T:2013:482) in so far as the General Court of the European Union thereby accepted that the European Commission could, by its decision of 30 May 2011, refuse to ClientEarth, on the basis of a general presumption, full access to those of the studies relating to the compatibility of the legislation of various Member States with European Union environmental law which, on the date when that decision was adopted, had not led the European Commission to send a letter of formal notice to the Member State concerned, under the first paragraph of Article 258 TFEU, and had not therefore been placed in a file pertaining to the pre-litigation stage of infringement proceedings;

               2)

               Dismisses the appeal for the remainder;

               3)

               Annuls the decision of the Commission of 30 May 2011 in so far as the European Commission thereby refused to give to ClientEarth full access to the studies referred to in point 1 of the operative part of this judgment;

               4)

               Orders ClientEarth and the European Commission to bear their own costs relating to the appeal and to the procedure at first instance;

               5)

               Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs relating to the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


title: Action brought on 25 March 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-94/96)

text:
1 . 6 . 96            I hN     i               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 158/3
entitled to compete for the course-teaching appointments                  Commerce ( Commercial Court ) of 1 March 1996 , received
and temporary university teaching posts .                                 at the Court Registry on 18 March 1996 , for a preliminary
                                                                          ruling in the case of URSSAF des Bouches-du-Rhône against
C ) OJ , English Special Edition 1958 ( II ), p . 457                     Clinique de la Pointe Courte SA, intervener: Jean Chouraqui
                                                                          (C - 95/96 ) and in the case of URSSAF des Bouches
                                                                          du-Rhône against Clinique Florens SA, intervener : Jean
                                                                          Chouraqui (C- 96/96 ) on the following question :
                                                                          May the French State initiate proceedings against Mr Jean
Action brought on 25 March 1996 by the Commission of
                                                                          Chouraqui , in his capacity as an Agent ('), before having
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                          made good the damage suffered by him and for which the
                          ( Case C-94/96 )                                State was responsible , bearing in mind that the sums due are
                            ( 96/C 158 /04                                closely linked to the harm suffered by Mr Chouraqui as a
                                                                          result of his irregular imprisonment since he was acquitted
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before                by the Cour d'assises by judgment of 16 December 1994 and
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       the judicial receivership proceedings aggravate the harm
                                                                          suffered ?
25 March 1996 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Maria Condou-Durande, of
its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg              (') That is 'in his capacity as an agent for EURL Jean Chouraqui,
at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the                               proprietor of the legal person liable for sums payable to the
Commission's Legal Service , Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                         French State'; ' since the plea in law based on the difference
                                                                               between the French State and the URSSAF must be rejected '.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare that by failing to adopt in due time the laws,
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary in
      order to comply with Council Directive 92/116/EEC ( 1 )
      of 17 December 1992 amending and updating Directive
      71 /118/EEC ( 2 ) on health problems affecting trade in
      fresh poultrymeat, the Hellenic Republic has failed                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Pretura
      to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that                 Circondariale di Roma, Tivoli Division, of 21 February
      Directive ;                                                         1996 in the criminal proceedings pending before that court
                                                                                against Italia Testa
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                                Case C-101 /96 )
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                       ( 96/C 158/06
Under Article 189 , third paragraph, of the Treaty
establishing the European Community directives are to be                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
binding upon each Member State to which they are                          European Communities by order of the Pretura
addressed . The Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the                 Circondariale di Roma ( District Magistrates ' Court, Rome ),
measures necessary to incorporate the relevant directive                  Tivoli Division, of 21 February 1996 , which was received at
fully into Greek law.                                                     the Court Registry on 26 March 1996 , for a preliminary
                                                                          ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court
                                                                          against Italia Testa on the following questions:
C ) OJ No L 62 , 1993 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 , p . 106 .
                                                                          A. May the national legislation conferring on the SIAE (')
                                                                                the exclusive right to manage copyright impede or
                                                                                prevent the import or export of sound recordings which
                                                                                have been lawfully marketed in another State ?
References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de                    B. In the context of the single market, characterized by the
Commerce de Marseille by judgments of that court of                             free movement of goods and the freedom to provide
1 March 1996 in the case of URSSAF des Bouches
                                                                                services, may the SIAE require payments in all cases and
du-Rhône against Clinique de la Pointe Courte SA,                               circumstances on behalf of authors, relying on recourse
intervener: Jean Chouraqui ( C-95/96 ) and in the case of                       to criminal proceedings in order to give effect to that
URSSAF des Bouches-du-Rhône against Clinique Florens                            power and enforce its claims ?
           SA, intervener: Jean Chouraqui ( C-96/96 )
                  ( Cases C-95/96 and C-96/96 )
                                                                          C. Is the legislation and the national case-law referred to by
                            ( 96/C 158/05 )                                     the SIAE in its application to join the proceedings as a
                                                                                party claiming damages liable to give rise to arbitrary
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          discrimination or a disguised restriction of trade, into
European Communities by judgments of the Tribunal de                            and out of Italy, in relation to the commercial


title: Case C-74/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Madrid — Spain) — Congregación de Escuelas Pías Provincia Betania v Ayuntamiento de Getafe (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Meaning of ‘State aid’ — Meaning of ‘undertaking’ and ‘economic activity’ — Other conditions for the application of Article 107(1) TFEU — Article 108(1) and (3) TFEU — Meaning of ‘new aid’ and ‘existing aid’ — Agreement of 3 January 1979 between the Kingdom of Spain and the Holy See — Tax on construction, installations and works — Exemption for buildings belonging to the Catholic Church)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Madrid — Spain) — Congregación de Escuelas Pías Provincia Betania v Ayuntamiento de Getafe
   (Case C-74/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Meaning of ‘State aid’ - Meaning of ‘undertaking’ and ‘economic activity’ - Other conditions for the application of Article 107(1) TFEU - Article 108(1) and (3) TFEU - Meaning of ‘new aid’ and ‘existing aid’ - Agreement of 3 January 1979 between the Kingdom of Spain and the Holy See - Tax on construction, installations and works - Exemption for buildings belonging to the Catholic Church))
   (2017/C 283/06)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Madrid

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Congregación de Escuelas Pías Provincia Betania

      Defendant: Ayuntamiento de Getafe

      Operative part of the judgment

   A tax exemption such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to which a congregation belonging to the Catholic Church is entitled in respect of works on a building intended to be used for activities that do not have a strictly religious purpose, may fall under the prohibition in Article 107(1) TFEU if, and to the extent to which, those activities are economic, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.


title: Case T-647/16: Order of the General Court of 1 June 2017 — Camerin v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Secondment in the interests of the service — Retirement age — Request for an extension of the secondment — Rejection of the request — Measure not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/28

         Order of the General Court of 1 June 2017 — Camerin v Parliament
   (Case T-647/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Secondment in the interests of the service - Retirement age - Request for an extension of the secondment - Rejection of the request - Measure not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 256/33)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Laure Camerin (Etterbeek, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Alves and M. Ecker, Agents)

      Subject matter

   Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the Parliament of 1 December 2015 rejecting the request for an extension of the applicant’s secondment beyond 31 December 2015 and seeking annulment of the decision of the President of the Group of 15 June 2016 rejecting her appeal against that earlier decision.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Ms Laure Camerin shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.


title: Case T-314/17: Action brought on 23 May 2017 — Nosio v EUIPO (MEZZA)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/50

         Action brought on 23 May 2017 — Nosio v EUIPO (MEZZA)
   (Case T-314/17)
   (2017/C 231/65)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and J. Graffer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MEZZA’ — Application for registration No 14 822 506

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2017 in Case R 1518/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               establish that there has been an infringement and incorrect application of Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               declare valid the limitation proposed in Class 33, namely ‘alcoholic beverages, in particular wine and sparkling wine, in bottles and/or containers with a capacity greater than or less than 0,375 litres’;

               —

               determine that there has been an infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO in Case R 1518/2016-5, delivered on 1 March 2017 and notified on 23 March 2017;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs and fees incurred in the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement and incorrect application of Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement and incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-345/15 P: Appeal brought on 7 July 2015 by Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) and Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2015 in Case T-169/12: Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) and Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) v Council of the European Union

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/33

         Appeal brought on 7 July 2015 by Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) and Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2015 in Case T-169/12: Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) and Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-345/15 P)
   (2015/C 311/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer, D. O'Keeffe, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Euroalliages

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the Judgment of the General Court;

               —

               Give a final judgment on the matter where the stage of the procedure so permits;

               —

               In the alternative, refer the case for reconsideration to the General Court;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

               —

               Order the interveners to bear their own costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants submit that the General Court infringed EU law in its appraisal of the appellants’ pleas in law in its judgment as follows:

               —

               In their first plea in law on appeal, the appellants contend that the General Court erred in its interpretation of Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1) (‘the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation’) and erred in its legal appraisal when it rejected the plea at first instance that Article 11(9) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation and its reference to Article 2 of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation require the institutions to calculate a dumping margin in all interim reviews of dumping, thereby also infringing the legal principles of good administration, transparency and legal certainty;

               —

               In their second plea in law on appeal, the appellants contend that the General Court erred in its interpretation of the reasoning of the General Court in its judgment in Case T-143/06 MTZ Polyfilms v Council of the European Union.

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


title: Case T-206/12: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2013 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend against a red background) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark LIBERTE american blend — Earlier Community word mark La LIBERTAD — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2013 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend against a red background)
   (Case T-206/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark LIBERTE american blend - Earlier Community word mark La LIBERTAD - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 233/13
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Villiger Söhne GmbH (Waldshut-Tiengen, Germany) (represented by: B. Pikolin and H. McKenzie, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 (Case R 411/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Villiger Söhne GmbH and GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.


title: Case T-368/07: Order of the General Court of 19 September 2011 — Lithuania v Commission

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/32

         Order of the General Court of 19 September 2011 — Lithuania v Commission
   (Case T-368/07) (1)

   2011/C 340/63
   Language of the case: Lithuanian
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case C-186/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias (Spain) lodged on 2 April 2007 — Club Náutico de Gran Canaria v Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias (Spain) lodged on 2 April 2007 — Club Náutico de Gran Canaria v Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias
   (Case C-186/07)
   (2007/C 129/14)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendant: Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias

      Applicant: Club Náutico de Gran Canaria
   Question referred
   Decides to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for the latter to give a preliminary ruling on the effects of its judgment of 7 May 1998 on Article 10.1.13 of Law 20/91 amending the fiscal aspects of the economic and fiscal rules applicable to the Canary Islands (1).

      (1)  Case C-124/96 Commission v Spain, ECR [1998], p. I-2501.


title: Case T-391/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Alber v OHIM (hand grip) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Hand grip — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Duty to give reasons — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) — Principle of examination of the facts of its own motion — Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/60

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Alber v OHIM (hand grip)
   (Case T-391/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Hand grip - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Duty to give reasons - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) - Principle of examination of the facts of its own motion - Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2009/C 267/105
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Alfons Alber (Verona, Italy) (represented by: S.Schneller, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 August 2007 (Case R 361/2007-4) and against the decision of the examiner of OHIM of 16 January 2007 in that case, in so far it rejects Community trade mark application No 4396727 for certain goods covered by that mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Alfons Alber to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007.


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2001 in Case C-309/01 P: Council of the European Union v Hans McAuley (Appeals — Officials — Appointment by promotion — Consideration of the comparative merits — Manifest error of assessment — Annulment — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
15.6.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 144/13
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                                       ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                        (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 December 2001
                           25 April 2002                                 in Case C-309/01 P: Council of the European Union v
                                                                                Hans McAuley (1)
in Case C-96/01 P: The Galileo Company, Galileo Inter-                   (Appeals — Officials — Appointment by promotion —
     national LLC v Council of the European Union (1)                    Consideration of the comparative merits — Manifest error of
                                                                         assessment — Annulment — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
(Air transport — Code of conduct for the use of computerised                                       (2002/C 144/19)
reservation systems (CRS) — Purchase of data by groups of
airlines — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility —
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly
                             unfounded)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                          (2002/C 144/18)
                                                                         In Case 309/01 P: Council of the European Union (Agents:
                   (Language of the case: English)                       F. Anton and A. Pilette), — appeal against the judgment of the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities, Fourth
                                                                         Chamber, of 14 June 2002 in Case T-230/99 McAuley v
                                                                         Council [2001] ECR-SC II-583, seeking to have that judgment
                                                                         set aside and the rejection of the application submitted at first
                                                                         instance annulled, the other party to the proceedings being
In Case C-96/01 P, The Galileo Company, established in                   Hans McAuley, represented by J.-N. Louis et V. Peere, avocats
Swindon (United Kingdom), Galileo International LLC, estab-              — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of F. Macken,
lished in Rosemont (United States), (represented by R. Plender,          President of Chamber, C. Gulmann and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues
QC, instructed by K. Holmes and by D. Austin and R. Butler,              (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-
solicitors: Appeal against the order of the Court of First               eral; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 13 December 2001,
Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) of                 the operative part of which is as follows:
15 December 2000 in Case T-113/99 Galileo and Galileo
International v Council [2000] ECR II-4141, seeking to have              1.    The appeal is dismissed.
that order set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being:
Council of the European Union (Agents: A. Lopes Sabino                   2.    The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.
and M. Bishop), Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: F. Benyon and M. Huttunen) and Amadeus Global
Travel Distribution SA, established in Madrid (Kingdom of                (1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
Spain), the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von
Bahr, President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and
C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 25 April
2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
1.    The appeal is dismissed.                                           Gerichtshof (Republic of Austria) by order of that Court
                                                                         of 29 January 2002 in the case of Herbert Karner
                                                                           Industrieauktionen GmbH against Troostwijk GesmbH
2.    The Galileo Company and Galileo International LLC are
      ordered to pay the costs.                                                                     (Case C-71/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/20)
(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof


title: Case F-27/07: Action brought on 26 March 2007 — Sundholm v Commission

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/37

         Action brought on 26 March 2007 — Sundholm v Commission
   (Case F-27/07)
   (2007/C 117/59)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Asa Sundholm (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of 2 June 2006 establishing the applicant's Career Development Report (CDR) for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002, adopted pursuant to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 20 April 2005 in Case T-86/04 Sundholm v Commission;

               —

               order the defendant to pay, at that stage of the proceedings, EUR 1 by way of damages for non-material loss;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant relies, first, on the breach of Article 233 EC and of the obligation to state reasons inasmuch as it is not possible from the contested decision to know how the grounds of the abovementioned judgment were taken into account.
   Moreover, the applicant asserts that the contested decision, first, failed to take into account the aims and objectives pursued by the new Career Development Review System, and, second, is vitiated by inconsistencies between the comments and marks awarded.
   Finally, the applicant relies on the breach of the rights of the defence inasmuch as the facts on which his appraisal was based were not disclosed to him either when they were produced or in the context of the appraisal procedure.


title: Case C-370/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret, Denmark by order of that court of  5 October 2005  in Anklagemyndigheden v Uwe Kay Festersen

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret, Denmark by order of that court of 5 October 2005 in Anklagemyndigheden v Uwe Kay Festersen
   (Case C-370/05)
   (2005/C 315/20)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Vestre Landsret, Denmark, of 5 October 2005, received at the Court Registry on 10 October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Anklagemyndigheden and Uwe Kay Festersen on the following questions:

               1.

               Do Article 43 EC and Article 56 EC preclude a Member State from laying down as a condition for acquiring an agricultural property the requirement that the acquirer take up fixed residence on that property?

               2.

               Does it matter, as regards the answer to Question 1, that the property cannot constitute a self-sustaining unit and that the property's residential building is situated in an urban zone?


title: Case F-111/13: Action brought on 20 November 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/22

         Action brought on 20 November 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-111/13)
   2014/C 31/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the EPSO decision not to admit the applicant to the selection phase of Competition EPSO/AD/231/12 (AD7) and to reclassify him Competition EPSO/AD/230/12 (AD5) and of the decision to enter him on the reserve list for the abovementioned AD5 competition, as well as damages for non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the act of 16.7.2012, the act of 3.9.2012, 3.12.2012 the act of 13.2.2013, the act of 15.3.2013 and, in so far as necessary, the acts dismissing the applicant’s claims of 21.8.2013 and 2.10.2013;

               —

               order the Commission to compensate the applicant in the amount of EUR 300 580;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-555/13: Order of the General Court of 10 January 2014 — MHCS v OHIM — Compañía Vinícola del Norte de España (ICE IMPERIAL)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/28

      Order of the General Court of 10 January 2014 — MHCS v OHIM — Compañía Vinícola del Norte de España (ICE IMPERIAL)
      (Case T-555/13) (1)

      (2014/C 71/53)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.


title: Case T-412/06: Action brought on 29 December 2006 — Vitro Corporativo v OHIM — VKR Holding (Vitro)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/41

         Action brought on 29 December 2006 — Vitro Corporativo v OHIM — VKR Holding (Vitro)
   (Case T-412/06)
   (2007/C 42/72)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Vitro Corporativo, S.A. de C.V. (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: VKR Holding A/S
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Community trade mark VITRO be registered for goods in Class 19

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Vitro’ (CTR application No 2 669 521) for goods and services in Classes 1, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 30, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: VKR Holding A/S

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Danish (No 1956 1415 VR), German (No 725 452), United Kingdom (No 1 436 897) and Community (No 651 745) word marks ‘VITRAL’, for goods, inter alia, in Class 19 (building glass, window glass, safety and isolating glass), in respect of which the opposition proceedings were lodged.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld and the Community trade mark was refused for goods in Class 19.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case T-186/05: Action brought on 10 May 2005 by Alenia Marconi Systems SpA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/44

         Action brought on 10 May 2005 by Alenia Marconi Systems SpA against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-186/05)
   (2005/C 217/97)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 May 2005 by Alenia Marconi Systems SpA, established in Rome (Italy), represented by Francesco Sciaudone, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by having adopted the decision of 12 February 2004, the Commission has incurred non-contractual liability;

               2.

               declare that the applicant has suffered damage as a result of that decision, quantified at EUR 72.8 million;

               3.

               order the Commission to make good such damage, together with compensatory interest and any interest on arrears;

               4.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This action seeks to obtain an order against the Commission to make good, as a matter of non-contractual liability, the damage caused to the applicant, by the defendant's alleged failure, in adopting the decision of 12 February 2004, to exercise correctly the supervisory functions it has in relation to monitoring the application of the Community competition provisions. That decision rejected the complaint lodged by the company then named Alenia Difesa, the business arm of FINMECCANICA SpA, in connection with the supposed absence of the preconditions for the applicability to Eurocontrol of the Community competition provisions and the absence of sufficient evidence to prove the alleged abuses to which the complaint related.
   The same decision was challenged by the same applicant by means of an action for annulment. (1)

   In support of its claims, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 82 of the Treaty in the assessment of its applicability to Eurocontrol, infringement of the duties of supervision of the application of the competition rules, infringement of the obligation to examine the complaint impartially and diligently, infringement of its rights as the complainant and infringement of the principle of reasonable duration of the administrative proceedings.

      (1)  Case T-155/04 Alenia Marconi Systems v Commission (OJ C 179 of 10.7.04, p. 11).


title: Case C-229/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt by order of that Court of 14 May 2002 in the case of 1. Tenderer: debis/AC, 2. ARGE Telekom & Partner, 3. Tenderer: SIEMENS AUSTRIA CARD against Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger

text:
C 219/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.9.2002
Is a CD-ROM drive which is equipped with a jack for                        Question 2:
headphones, a volume control button and a button to insert
and remove CDs, but which cannot by itself reproduce
graphics, audio, data and text, to be classified for the period            In the event that the answer given to Question 1 is no:
1 January 1995 to 21 November 1995 under heading
8521 90 00 in accordance with classification practice laid
down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2564/95 ( 1), or                     Is the abovementioned provision to be understood as meaning
under heading 8471 93 51 in accordance with the classifi-                  that, if a tenderer’s bid is not eliminated by the contracting
cation practice laid down in Commission Regulation (EC)                    authority, but the review body finds in the course of the review
No 2491/96 (2) and the decision adopted by the Harmonized                  procedure that the contracting authority would have been
System Committee of the World Customs Organization                         bound to eliminate it, the tenderer has been or risks being
(Doc. 40.260 E and Doc. 40.600 E)?                                         harmed by the infringement alleged by him — in this case the
                                                                           finding by the contracting authority that a rival tenderer
                                                                           submitted the best bid — and that he must therefore have the
                                                                           right to bring a review procedure?
( 1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2564/95 of 27 October 1995
     concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined
     nomenclature (OJ L 262 of 1.11.1995, p. 25).
( 2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2491/96 of 23 December 1996             (1 ) OJ L 395 [1989], p. 33.
     amending Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and
     statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ
     L 338 of 28.12.1996, p. 14).
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-                     beamt (Austria) by order of that Court of 14 May 2002 in
beamt by order of that Court of 14 May 2002 in the case                    the review procedure between Grossmann Air Service
of 1. Tenderer: debis/AC, 2. ARGE Telekom & Partner, 3.                         GmbH & Co KG and the Bund (Republic of Austria)
Tenderer: SIEMENS AUSTRIA CARD against Hauptver-
    band der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger
                                                                                (Case C-230/02)
                           (Case C-229/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 219/04)
                           (2002/C 219/03)
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt                      (Federal Public Procurement Office) of , received at the Court
(Federal Public Procurement Office) of 14 May 2002, received
                                                                           Registry on 20 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
at the Court Registry on 20 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           review procedure between Grossmann Air Service GmbH &
in the case of 1. Tenderer: debis/AC, 2. ARGE Telekom
                                                                           Co KG and the Bund (Republic of Austria) on the following
& Partner, 3. Tenderer: SIEMENS AUSTRIA CARD against
                                                                           questions:
Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger
on the following questions:
                                                                           Question 1:
Question 1:
                                                                           Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) of
Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 Decem-               21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regu-
ber 1989 (1) on the coordination of the laws, regulations and              lations and administrative provisions relating to the application
administrative provisions relating to the application of review            of review procedures to the award of public supply and public
procedures to the award of public supply and public works                  works contracts to be interpreted as meaning that the review
contracts to be interpreted as meaning that any person seeking             procedure must be available to any undertaking which has
the award of a specific pending public contract is entitled to             submitted a bid, or applied to participate, in a public procure-
institute a review procedure?                                              ment procedure?


title: Case T-94/05: Action brought on 18 February 2005 by Athinaiki Techniki SA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/40

         Action brought on 18 February 2005 by Athinaiki Techniki SA against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-94/05)
   (2005/C 106/80)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 February 2005 by Athinaiki Techniki SA, Neo Iraklio, Athens (Greece), represented by Spyros A. Pappas, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decision of the Directorate General for Competition to take no further action on the applicant's complaint relating to State aid granted by the Hellenic Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium in connection with the Casino Mont Parnes public contract, which the applicant learnt of by letter dated 2 December 2004;

               2.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of its application the applicant relies first on an alleged infringement by the Commission of the obligation to initiate the formal examination procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC and Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
   Second, the applicant complains that the Commission made several errors in the statement of reasons for the contested decision. In this connection, the applicant submits that the Commission states no reasoning to demonstrate that there were no serious difficulties of assessment, still less to explain why it disregarded certain key documents. Moreover, the contested decision is based solely on the analysis of the Directorate General for the Internal Market, although this was confined to finding that it was not possible to apply the Community legislation in this case. Finally, the applicant considers that the statement of reasons for the decision, namely the decision not to regard the measures concerned as State aid, is also inadequate, and submits, on the same basis, that there was an infringement of Article 87(1) EC.


title: Action brought on 27 November 1995 by the Flemish Region against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-214/95)

text:
No C 16/ 16            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20 . 1 . 96
Action brought on 31 October 1995 by Giampaolo                         the European Parliament. That communication was not sent
            Cordiale against European Parliament                       in due time through error or forgetfulness on the part of the
                                                                       official concerned .
                        ( Case T-205/95 )
                           ( 96/C 16/35 )                              The applicant maintains in that regard that it cannot be
                                                                       asserted that his secondment to Rome was a private
                (Language of the case: Italian)                        agreement based on the resolution of 20 October 1988 ,
                                                                       without any financial implications for the Group, when a
                                                                       written, precise and unambiguous undertaking exists,
An action against the European Parliament was brought                  according to which the applicant was to remain within the
before the Court of First Instance of the European                     Community system, whereas the Italian administration was
Communities on 31 October 1995 by Giampaolo Cordiale,                  to make the necessary arrangements regarding the national
formerly a member of the temporary staff of the European               civil servant who was to replace him in Brussels.
Parliament ( ELDR Group ), represented by Jean-Noël Louis,
of the Brussels Bar, and Alberto Panuccio, of the Reggio
Calabria Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener.
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           Action brought on 27 November 1995 by the Flemish
                                                                       Region against the Commission of the European
— declare unfounded and annul the implied rejection of the                                          Communities
    applicant's complaint of 22 March 1995 ,                                                     ( Case T-214/95 )
                                                                                96/C 16/36
— declare well-founded and legitimate the applicant's
    request for allowances, the same having been recognized
    in a document emanating from the defendant itself, and                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
    therefore order the defendant to pay the sums due,
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                               Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 27 November
                                                                        1995 by the Flemish Region, represented by A. L. Merckx,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    of the Brussels Bar .
The applicant, a member of the temporary staff seconded to             The applicant claims that the Court should:
the office of the Minister for coordination of Community
policies in Rome, contests the legality of the decision of              1 , annul the Commission Decision of 26 July 1995
9 March 1 995 of the office of the ELDR Group of the                        concerning aid granted by the Flemish Region to the
European Parliament denying him the right to the duty                       Belgian airline Vlaamse Luchttransportmaatschappij
travel allowance ( allowance for staying in Rome, together                  NV;
with travel expenses ) provided for by the decision of the
office of the President of that institution and notified to all        2 , order the Commission to pay the costs.
the members of that office by a circular letter from the
Secretary-General dated 20 October 1988 .                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The contested decision stated that the Personnel Division              — inadequate reasoning in relation to the application of
had never received the relevant documentation from the                      Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty as regards the distortion
Group, including a request for the applicant to be placed at                of competition and the adverse effect on trade between
the disposal of an Italian administrative authority and that,               Member States,
in the absence of any such request, it was impossible to
rectify matters retroactively.                                         — infringement of Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty,
                                                                            inasmuch as the aid measure, which is very limited in its
As a preliminary point, the applicant alleges improper                      scope, does not affect trade between Member States,
conduct on the part of the ELDR which gave rise to
 non-payment of the allowance due to him from the                      — inadequate reasoning in relation to the exemption
 Directorate-General for Personnel . He states in that                      claimed by the applicant with regard to aid measures of
connection that his entitlement to the payment in question                  limited scope in the aviation sector ( OJ No C 350,
 arose when the ELDR agreed to, formalized and made                         p . 5 ),
 arrangements for an exchange between the applicant and
 the Italian official, who in the meantime has replaced him in          — inadequate reasoning in relation to the application of
 Brussels .                                                                 Article 92 ( 3 ) (c ) of the EC Treaty,
 Nothing      more     was     needed,    therefore,   than   the       — infringement of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty.
 communication from the secretariat of the ELDR to the
 Directorate-General for Personnel, Budget and Finance of