title: Action brought on 5 January 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Case C-3/96)

text:
No C 77/6               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                        16 . 3 . 96
The applicant claims that the Court should :                               intended to be set off subsequently, in the course of the
                                                                           sale of the NMH shares to Max Aicher, against the
1 . declare void the Commission's decision of 18 October                   planned loss compensation by the State of Bavaria . Since
    1995 concerning a State aid by the Federal State of                    the privatization of the NMH shares provided for in
    Bavaria     to    the  EGKS-Stahlunternehmen           Neue            accordance with the contracts between the State of
    Maxhiitte Stahlwerke GmbH, Sulzbach-Rosenberg —                        Bavaria and Aicher is economically plausible, the grant
    K ( 95 ) 2828 final; and                                               of the disputed loans to NMH is also economically
                                                                           sensible . The waiver by the State of Bavaria of the loan in
2 . order the defendant to pay the costs .                                 the amount of DM 48 895 million was ultimately an
                                                                           integral part of the measures to privatize NMH .
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                           Logically, the loan transactions between the State of
                                                                           Bavaria and NMH cannot be characterized as aid, if the
— Breach of essential procedural requirements ( obligation                 assumption of losses by the State of Bavaria upon the
    under Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty to state the reasons               privatization of its NMH shares is unobjectionable
    on which a decision is based ):                                        under State aids law .
    — overall basis of the decision is the fact that the                   The Commission also breaches Article 83 of the ECSC
        shareholder loans made by the Federal State of                     Treaty, if from the outset it denies the State of Bavaria
        Bavaria are alleged to be in the nature of capital                 the right to sell a loss-making subsidiary and to assume
        replacements,                                                      part of its losses when so doing. That provision
                                                                           guarantees the right of public authorities to take part in
    — sweeping assertion that repayment could not be, and                  economic life and prohibits discrimination against the
        was not, expected to be made,                                      economic activity of public undertakings .
    — blanket refusal to refrain from adopting the                   — Breach of the principle of good faith : The Commission
        contested decision on the ground that it would                     should have delayed the contested decision until it had
        anticipate the outcome of Cases C-158/95 (') and                   been established whether the plan for the privatization
        T-129/95 ( 2 ).                                                    of the shares held by the State of Bavaria was permissible
                                                                           under Community law ( pending Cases C-158/95 and
— Incorrect application of Articles 4 (c ) and 83 of the                   T-129/95 ).
    ECSC Treaty: The loans granted by the State of Bavaria
    are not to be classified as aids, but as an act of a             (M OJ No C 362 , 1995 , p . 57 .
    shareholder which a private investor in a comparable             ( 2 ) OJ No C 229 , 1995 , p . 21 .
    situation would also reasonably have performed. The
    fact that there was and is a real prospect of the loan being
    repaid is shown by the fact that the productive situation
    of the company has stabilized and profits can be
    expected in the future . Although the State of Bavaria
    nevertheless subsequently decided not to demand                  Action brought on 5 January 1996 by the Commission of
    repayment of the loan, that was exclusively in order to          the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
    set it off, upon the sale of its shares, against the loss                                      Netherlands
    compensation by the State of Bavaria provided for in the                                     ( Case C-3/96
    privatization agreements. The set-off of the loans upon
                                                                                ( 96/C 77/ 12 )
    the sale of the shares was wholly appropriate and
    reasonable in economic terms, because it enabled the
    State of Bavaria to reorganize its policy towards                An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was
    combines and to protect its entrepreneurial image .              brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                     Communities on 5 January 1996 by the Commission of the
    In any event, having regard to the principle of                  European Communities, represented by W. Wils, of its Legal
    proportionality, the Commission should not have                  Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
    claimed that the loan be repaid, but only that it be             Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, of its
    modified in such a way as to require repayment                   Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    irrespective of whether profits were expected.
                                                                     The Commission claims that the Court should :
    The Commission wrongly compares the conduct of the
    State of Bavaria with that of the private, minority               1 . declare that, by not designating sufficient special
    shareholders in assuming that the latter find themselves                protection areas within the meaning of Article 4 ( 1 ) of
    in a comparable situation . Their financial possibilities,              Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
    interests and entrepreneurial aims were, however,                       conservation of wild birds, the Kingdom of the
    different; in particular, they had no influence over the                Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
    future business orientation of the Maxhiitte group. The                 Directive and under Articles 5 and 1 89 of the EC Treaty;
    loans granted by the State of Bavaria were in any event                 and
    sensible in entrepreneurial terms, because they were
    intended to enable the privatization of Neue Maxhiitte            2 . order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the
    ( NMH ). The claims arising out of the loans granted were               costs .
 ---pagebreak--- 16 . 3 . 96             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          No C 111
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
It is clear from Article 4 ( 1 ) of Directive 79/409/EEC that the        1 . declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force or,
designation of special protection areas is the primary means                   in the alternative, to notify within the prescribed period
whereby the Member States must ( seek to ) ensure the                          the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
survival and reproduction of the bird species mentioned in                     necessary to comply with Council Directive
Annex I thereto . The fact that in a Member State some                         90/658/EEC (') of 4 December 1990, in particular
populations of such species are declining justifies the                        Article 8 thereof, and those necessary to comply with
suspicion that the Member State has not complied with its                      Directive 93/16/EEC ( 2 ) of 5 April 1993 , in particular
obligation to achieve the appropriate result. In fact, in the                  Articles 3 and 9(3 ) and ( 4 ) thereof, which correspond to
Netherlands, populations of nine of the bird species                           Articles 3 and 9 ( a ) ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) respectively of Directive
mentioned in Annex I have fallen by over 50% .                                 75/362/EEC ( 3 ) as amended by Article 1 of Directive
                                                                               90/568/EEC, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
Under the last subparagraph of Article 4(1 ), Member States                    obligations under Articles 5 and 189 of the Treaty
must classify the most suitable territories in number and size                 establishing the European Community .
as special protection areas . With a view to a coherent general
system of special protection areas, the Commission had                   2 . order the defendant to pay the costs .
scientific surveys carried out by the Secretariat de la flore et
de la faune of the Musee national d'histoire naturelle in                Pleas in law and main arguments:
Paris, which drew up an inventory of habitats which should
be classified, on ornithological criteria , as special protection        The mandatory nature of the third paragraph of Article 189
areas; that list was updated in 1989 and 1994 by the                     and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires
International Council for Bird Preservation ('Inventory of               Member States to adopt the measures necessary to comply
Important Bird Areas in the European Community' —                        with the directives which are addressed to them within the
IBA89 and IBA94 ). As regards the legal relevance of IBA89               period prescribed therein. That period expired on 1 July
and IBA94, the Commission considers that the objectives of               1991 without the Kingdom of Spain having brought into
Article 4(1 ) would be best served if the Member States were             force the necessary provisions.
in fact to classify all the areas mentioned in the inventory as
special protection areas . Since, however, the Member States             (') OJ No L 353 , 17. 12 . 1990 , p . 73 .
enjoy a certain discretionary power in this field, it does not           ( 2 ) OJ No L 165 , 7. 7 . 1993 , p . 1 .
seem to the Commission to be possible to impose that                     ( 3 ) OJ No L 167, 30 . 6 . 1975 , p . 1 .
maximum result by law. On the other hand, there may be a
breach of the obligation of classification if a Member State
manifestly disregards the number and size of the IBA89 and
IBA94 areas. This is particularly so if a Member State
classifies as special protection areas under half, in terms
both of number and of total size, of the areas listed in IBA89           Reference for preliminary ruling from the Bundes
and IBA94 . Special protection areas must, moreover, be                  verwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 3 1 August 1995
sufficiently varied and representative to offer protection for           in the case of Badische Erfrischungs-Getranke GmbH 8t Co.
all the bird species listed in Annex I. The number and size of                           KG v. Land Baden-Wiirttemberg
the special protection areas classified by the Netherlands are                                      ( Case C- 17/96 )
not sufficient to meet those requirements .
                                                                                ( 96/C 77/ 14
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
                                                                         the European Communities by order of the
                                                                         Bundesverwaltungsgericht ( Federal Administrative Court)
                                                                         — Third Senate — of 3 1 August 1 995 , received at the Court
Action brought on 11 January 1996 by the Commission of                   Registry on 19 January 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                          case of Badische Erfrischungs-Getranke GmbH & Co . KG
                                 Spain                                   v. Land Baden-Wurttemberg on the following questions :
                          ( Case C-5/96
                            ( 96/C 77/ 13 )                              1 . Is Article 1 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 80/777/EEC of
                                                                                15 July 1980 { l ) in conjunction with Annex I thereto
                                                                               ( Section I. Definition ) to be interpreted as meaning that
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                                water — apart from ' old water' covered by the second
                                                                               subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Section I. Definition of
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                      Annex I — is to be recognized as being natural mineral
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                            water only if it has properties favourable to health and,
11 January 1996 by the Commission of the European                              if so, are those provisions to be interpreted as meaning
Communities, represented by B. J. Drijber and J. R. Vidal                      that those properties must be proved ?
Puig, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de               2 . May the properties favourable to health which may be
la Cruz, of its Legal Service .                                                necessary also ensue from the absence or low content of


title: Case T-532/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2016 — Z v Court of Justice of the European Union (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Staff report — Impartiality of the Civil Service Tribunal — Application for recusal of the members of the formation of the Tribunal which delivered judgment — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2016 — Z v Court of Justice of the European Union

   (Case T-532/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Staff report - Impartiality of the Civil Service Tribunal - Application for recusal of the members of the formation of the Tribunal which delivered judgment - Rights of defence - Right to effective judicial protection))
   (2017/C 022/33)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Z (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented initially by A. Placco, and subsequently by J. Inghelram and Á. Almendros Manzano, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015, Z v Court of Justice (F-64/13, EU:F:2015:72), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Ms Z to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.


title: Case C-399/08 P: Appeal brought on 15 September 2008 (by fax on 12 September 2008 ) by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) on 1 July 2008 in Case T-266/02 Deutsche Post AG, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities, supported by Bundesverband Internationaler Express- und Kurierdienste eV (BIEK) and UPS Europe NV/SA

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/18

         Appeal brought on 15 September 2008 (by fax on 12 September 2008) by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) on 1 July 2008 in Case T-266/02 Deutsche Post AG, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities, supported by Bundesverband Internationaler Express- und Kurierdienste eV (BIEK) and UPS Europe NV/SA
   (Case C-399/08 P)
   (2008/C 301/33)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by V. Kreuschitz, J. Flett and B. Martenczuk, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Bundesverband Internationaler Express- und Kurierdienste eV, UPS Europe NV/SA, Deutsche Post AG, Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

               —

               declare, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, that the applicant has failed to prove that the decision infringes Article 87(1) EC, and accordingly dismiss the application. In the alternative, the Commission asks for the case to be referred back to the Court of First Instance;

               —

               order the applicant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The respondent to the appeal is Deutsche Post AG (DPAG), a large undertaking internationally active in the field of postal services, which received substantial compensation payments from State resources. In a separate decision under Article 82 EC from 2002, which has not been contested, the Commission found that DPAG had abused its dominant position in the market by means of prices on the parcels market that did not cover costs. Since DPAG had made losses everywhere in the period in question, that aggressive price policy could only have been financed by the resources the undertaking had received as financial compensation.
   The central issue in the present appeal is which method of analysis the Commission was entitled to apply in the particular circumstances of the present case in order to find that there was unlawful aid to DPAG.
   According to the method preferred by the Court of First Instance in the judgment under appeal, all the undertaking's costs and receipts in the relevant period in connection with the public interest obligations would have to be examined as to whether the undertaking had received excessive financial compensation from the State. If there were such overcompensation, it could be concluded that those resources had also been used to finance the unfair price policy in the adjacent market of door-to-door parcel services.
   According to the method used in the decision, the deficits in the adjacent market caused by the unfair price policy are calculated and it is ascertained whether or not those shortfalls have been compensated with State resources. If such a compensation is found and there is no other source of finance (in the form of the undertaking's own resources), the conclusion is that State resources have been made use of to finance the unfair price policy in the adjacent market of door-to-door parcel services.
   The Commission regards the method used in its decision as correct. By means of that method, on the basis of a logical chain of reasoning which includes the assumption that money must after all come from somewhere, the existence of unlawful State aid may be deduced. Neither the chain of reasoning nor the underlying facts are challenged in the judgment under appeal. The Court of First Instance nevertheless takes the view in the judgment under appeal, without further explanation, that only the former method is possible.
   The Commission puts forward the following grounds of appeal. There is an infringement of Articles 87(1) EC and 86(2) EC, in so far as those provisions were incorrectly interpreted in the judgment under appeal as excluding a method, not otherwise challenged in the judgment under appeal, which makes it possible to conclude, on the basis of logical and watertight reasoning, that State aid incompatible with the common market is present. The Commission further relies on lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance and breach of Article 230 EC, in so far as the Court of First Instance exceeded its powers and went beyond the power of review provided for in Article 230 EC, and on Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, in so far as the Court of First Instance failed to state reasons for the unlawfulness of the method used in the decision.


title: Case C-57/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Fédération des maisons de repos privées de Belgique (Femarbel) ASBL v Commission communautaire commune de Bruxelles-Capitale (Directive 2006/123/EC — Scope ratione materiae — Healthcare services — Social services — Day-care centres and Night-care centres providing assistance and care to elderly persons)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/12

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Fédération des maisons de repos privées de Belgique (Femarbel) ASBL v Commission communautaire commune de Bruxelles-Capitale
   (Case C-57/12) (1)

   (Directive 2006/123/EC - Scope ratione materiae - Healthcare services - Social services - Day-care centres and Night-care centres providing assistance and care to elderly persons)
   2013/C 252/19
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour constitutionnelle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fédération des maisons de repos privées de Belgique (Femarbel) ASBL

      Defendant: Commission communautaire commune de Bruxelles-Capitale

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour constitutionnelle — Interpretation of Article 2(2)(f) and (j) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36) — Scope ratione materiae — Healthcare services — Social services — Inclusion of day-care centres providing assistance and care appropriate to old people’s loss of independence — Inclusion of night-care centres providing health assistance and care that cannot be given to old people by their close relatives on a continuous basis

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2(2)(f) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as meaning that the exclusion of healthcare services from the scope of that directive covers any activity intended to assess, maintain or restore the state of health of patients, where that activity is carried out by healthcare professionals recognised as such by the Member State concerned, regardless of the ways in which the facilities in which that care is provided are organised and financed or whether they are public or private. It is for the national court to ascertain whether day-care centres and night-care centres are excluded from the scope of that directive, having regard to the nature of the activities carried out by the healthcare professionals in those centres and whether those activities constitute a principal part of the services offered by those centres.

               2.

               Article 2(2)(j) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as meaning that the exclusion of social services from the scope of that directive includes any activity relating, inter alia, to the care and assistance of elderly persons, where that activity is carried out by a private service provider which has been mandated by the State by means of an act conferring, in a clear and transparent manner, a genuine obligation to provide such services under specific conditions. It is for the national court to ascertain whether day-care centres and night-care centres are excluded from the scope of Directive 2006/123, on the basis of the nature of the principle activities of care and assistance of elderly persons carried out in those centres, and the status of those centres under the applicable Belgian legislation.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: Case T-112/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Mondelez UK Holdings & Services v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (Shape of a chocolate bar) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional mark — Shape of a chocolate bar — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Mondelez UK Holdings & Services v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (Shape of a chocolate bar)
   (Case T-112/13) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional mark - Shape of a chocolate bar - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 038/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd (Uxbridge, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Mitcheson QC, P. Walsh, J. Blum, and S. Dunstan, Solicitors, and D. Byrne, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented initially by G. Vos, M. Bakker and J. van den Berg, lawyers, and subsequently by G. Vos, S. Malynicz QC, T. Scourfield and T. Reid, Solicitors)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 December 2012 (Case R 513/2011-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Cadbury Holdings and Société des produits Nestlé.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 December 2012 (Case R 513/2011-2);

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd;

               3.

               Orders Société des produits Nestlé SA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.


title: Case T-71/12: Order of the General Court of 17 June 2013 — Meskarian v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Removal of the persons concerned from the list — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/80

         Order of the General Court of 17 June 2013 — Meskarian v Council
   (Case T-71/12) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Removal of the persons concerned from the list - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 225/177
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mohammed Reza Meskarian (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for (i) annulment of point 13 of Table A in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), point 13 of Table A in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern the applicant, and (ii) a declaration that Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1) are not to apply to the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case C-584/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment obligations — Directive 2006/12/EC — Directive 91/689/EEC — Directive 1999/31/EC — Waste management — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-implementation — Article 260(2) TFEU — Pecuniary penalties — Periodic penalty payment — Lump sum)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-584/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment obligations - Directive 2006/12/EC - Directive 91/689/EEC - Directive 1999/31/EC - Waste management - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-implementation - Article 260(2) TFEU - Pecuniary penalties - Periodic penalty payment - Lump sum))
   (2016/C 402/05)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia, E. Sanfrutos Cano and D. Loma-Osorio Lerena, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all of the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 10 September 2009 in Commission v Greece (C-286/08, not published, EU:C:2009:543), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 30 000 for each day of delay in adopting the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 10 September 2009 in Commission v Greece (C-286/08, not published, EU:C:2009:543), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until full compliance with the judgment of 10 September 2009 in Commission v Greece (C-286/08, not published, EU:C:2009:543). That amount is divided into three parts, corresponding to the three heads of claim invoked by the European Commission and is equivalent, with respect to the first head of claim, to 10 % of the total amount of the penalty payment, namely EUR 3 000, with respect to the second head of claim, to 45 % of that amount, namely EUR 13 500, as well as with respect to the third head of claim, which, as regards the proper management of so-called ‘historical’ waste, will be subject to a six-monthly reduction as a pro rata of the volume of that waste the management of which was in compliance. That reduction is limited to 50 % of the amount of the penalty payment corresponding to that head of claim, that is to say, EUR 6 750;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 10 million;

               4.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.


title: Action brought on 10 December 1996 by Elliniki Viomikhania Oplon (EVO) AE v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Case T-220/96)

text:
No C 54/36           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 22 . 2 . 97
adversely affect the applicant, the grounds on which they           The applicant further pleads that there has been a failure
are based are not stated and, consequently, they infringe           to take into account his entitlement to a pension .
the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 25           Although he applied for the transfer of the pension
of the Staff Regulations . Moreover, the administration             entitlement acquired by him in Germany, he received, by
committed a manifest error of assessment in considering             letter of 1 April 1996, a breakdown showing only the
that the applicant's qualifications were not exceptional for        reimbursement of his personal pension contributions . No
the purpose of applying Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff                transfer of his pension entitlement has been effected and
Regulations.                                                        he now enjoys only an extremely modest pension
                                                                    entitlement within the German system, whilst being
                                                                    deprived of any entitlement under the pension system of
                                                                    the Community civil service .
Action brought on 27 December 1996 by 'Y' against the
                    European Parliament
                      ( Case T-219/96 )
                         ( 97/C 54/59 )                             Action brought on 10 December 1996 by Elliniki
                                                                    Viomikhania Oplon ( EVO ) AE v. Council of the European
               (Language of the case: French)                          Union and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-220/96 )
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European                                             ( 97/C 54/60 )
Communities on 27 December 1996 by 'Y', residing in
Brussels, represented by Gerard Collin, of the Brussels Bar,                        (Language of the case: Greek)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 rue de Cessange .                      An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                    the Commission of the European Communities was
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         brought before the Court of First Instance on 10 December
                                                                    1996 by Elliniki Viomikhania Oplon ( EVO ) AE, a
— order the European Parliament to reimburse to the                 company governed by Greek law having its seat in Athens,
    applicant the sums improperly withheld from his                 represented by Mikhail Stathopoulos and Ioannis
    salary between 1 November 1993 and 19 January                   Anagnostou , of the Athens Bar, with an address for service
     1996, together with default interest from the dates            in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May.
    when they respectively became due and payable,
— order the European Parliament to pay compensation in              The applicant claims that the Court should :
    the provisional sum of Bfrs 3 000 000, subject to
    increase during the course of the proceedings,                  1 . delcare the application admissible,
— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.                   2 . order the defendants, for the reason set out in the
                                                                         application, to pay it US $ 75 451 500, or the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      equivalent in ecus on the date of payment according to
                                                                         the highest official rate of US $ to ecu, or, in the
On 6 October 1993 the appointing authority decided to                    alternative ECU 60 478 770 at the current official rate
suspend the applicant from his duties and to withhold half               of US $ to ecu, with interest at 8 % , as is usual in
of his basic salary, pursuant to Article 88 of the Staff                 international contracts, from the date on which the
Regulations. On 6 June 1994, the applicant was convicted                 application was lodged to the date of full settlement,
of an offence by the Tribunal Correctionnel de Bruxelles                 against the transfer to them of the applicant's claim
(Brussels Criminal Court ).                                              against the Central Bank of Iraq in that amount,
Under the third and fifth paragraphs of Article 88 of the
Staff Regulations, the applicant's situation should have            3 . order the defendants to pay the costs and fees of the
been definitively resolved within four months from the                   applicant's lawyers .
date when the verdict reached by the criminal court
hearing the case became final . Since his conviction became         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
final on 21 June 1994, the applicant's situation should
have been definitively resolved by no later than 21 October         The applicant company manufactures and trades in
1994 . The time limit of four months was clearly not                weapons and munitions . Under a contract of 12 January
complied with, since the applicant became aware on                  1987 it sold to Iraq munitions, which it supplied over the
5 February 1996 of the disciplinary decision removing him           period 25 October 1987 to 30 May 1989 , for a price
from his post which the appointing authority had taken              which was to be paid by the Central Bank of Iraq by way
on 19 January 1996 . The applicant is applying, pursuant            of irrevocable guaranteed letter of credit. The Central
to the fourth paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff                  Bank of Iraq refused, however, to pay, relying on
Regulations, for reimbursement of the sums withheld from            Resolution No 660 of 6 August 1990 of the United
his remuneration; those sums were improperly withheld               Nations Security Council, on the basis of which Council
between 1 November 1993 and 19 January 1996 .                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 2340/90 was adopted, prohibiting
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 2 . 97           EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 54/37
all trade with Iraq and Kuwait. The applicant sued in the                        the decision not to promote her to grade C 1 for the
Greek courts and succeeded in obtaining a judgment                               year 1996 (published in Administrative Notice No 933
ordering the Central Bank of Iraq to pay it the amount of                        of 9 April 1996 ),
US $ 75 451 500, but execution of that judgment proved
impossible . The damage suffered by the applicant consists
precisely in the fact that it is impossible to enforce its                  — order the Commission to pay the costs.
claim. The applicant transfers the said contractual claim
against the Central Bank of Iraq to the European Union                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
and asks it, on the basis of Article 215 of the Treaty, to
pay it compensation of an equal amount.
                                                                            The applicant maintains that it is an established fact,
                                                                            which the Commission does not challenge in the contested
The applicant maintains that all the conditions giving rise                 decision, that she was of greater merit than other officials
to the non-contractual liability of the European Union are                  who were promoted to grade C 1 during the 1996
met. In particular it maintains that when Regulation                        promotions exercise . She argues that, accordingly, by
( EEC ) No 2340/90 (') was adopted the defendant                            refusing her that promotion, the Commission acted
Community bodies infringed the general principles and                       contrary to the principle of non-discrimination and
rules of Community law, specifically the principles of                      infringed Article 45 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations .
protection of property, equal treatment and the
prohibition of discrimination, prohibition of abuse of
powers, proportionality, protection of economic freedom
and protection of legitimate expectations .
The applicant considers that there is no need for breach of                 Action brought on 2 January 1997 by Jean-Luc Delhaye
a superior rule of law for the protection of the individual,                     against Commission of the European Communities
as has been held in the case-law of the Court with regard
                                                                                ( Case T-l/97)
to legislative acts, since Regulation ( EEC ) No 2340/90
does not constitute a legislative act, but in substance an                                            ( 97/C 54/62 )
act of a direct and individual character.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
O Council Regulation ( EEC) No 2340/90 of 8 August 1990
    preventing trade within the Community relating to Iraq and
    Kuwait, ( OJ No L 213 , 9 . 8 . 1990, p. 1 ).                           An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                            Instance of the European Communities on 2 January 1997
                                                                            by Jean-Luc Delhaye, resident in Thieu, Belgium,
                                                                            represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                            address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                            Christian Kremer, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
Action brought on 27 December 1996 by Immacolata
Manzo against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        ( Case T-221/96 )
                                                                            — annul the Commission's decision of 25 September
                           ( 97/C 54/61 )
                                                                                1996, notified to the applicant on 1 October 1996,
                                                                                rejecting his complaint of 28 May 1996 ( registered on
                 (Language of the case: French)                                 4 June 1996 ) and refusing to award him the
                                                                                installation allowance provided for in Article 5 of
                                                                                Annex VII to the Staff Regulations,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                           — order the defendant to bear the costs .
Instance of the European Communities on 27 December
1996 by Immacolata Manzo, residing in Brussels,
represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Christian Kremer, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                            The applicant states that when he was re-posted to
                                                                            Brussels on his return from the Commission Delegation to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Kiev the Commission's administration refused to grant
                                                                            him an installation allowance . He contests that decision
                                                                            and alleges infringement of Article 71 of the Staff
— annul the express decision of 25 September 1996                           Regulations and of Article 5 of Annex VII to those
     rejecting the applicant's complaint, submitted to the                  regulations, as well as infringement of Article 110 of the
     appointing authority on 17 June 1996 , challenging                     Staff Regulations and abuse of power.


title: Case C-484/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu (Croatia) lodged on 11 September 2015 — Ibrica Zulfikarpašić v Slaven Gajer

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu (Croatia) lodged on 11 September 2015 — Ibrica Zulfikarpašić v Slaven Gajer
   (Case C-484/15)
   (2015/C 389/21)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Referring court

   Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu, Stalna služba u Samoboru

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ibrica Zulfikarpašić

      Defendant: Slaven Gajer

      Question referred

   A ruling is sought from the Court of Justice of the European Union as to whether the provisions of the Law on Enforcement, concerning the European Enforcement Order, comply with Regulation (EC) No 805/2004, (1) that is to say whether, in the Republic of Croatia in relation to the issue of a writ of execution based on an authentic document in enforcement proceedings, the term ‘court’ includes notaries, whether notaries can issue European Enforcement Orders in respect of definitive and enforceable writs of execution based on authentic documents when those writs have not been contested, and where the answer is in the negative, whether the courts can issue European Enforcement Orders in respect of writs of execution based on an authentic document prepared by a notary, when the content of those writs relates to uncontested claims, and in such a case what form should be used.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15).


title: Joined Cases C-105/12 to C-107/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 October 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staat der Nederlanden v Essent NV and Others, (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Article 63 TFEU — Rules governing the system of property ownership — Article 345 TFEU — Electricity and gas distribution system operators — Prohibition of privatisation — Prohibition of links with undertakings which generate/produce, supply or trade electricity or gas — Prohibition of activity which may adversely affect system operation)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 October 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staat der Nederlanden v Essent NV and Others,
   (Joined Cases C-105/12 to C-107/12) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - Rules governing the system of property ownership - Article 345 TFEU - Electricity and gas distribution system operators - Prohibition of privatisation - Prohibition of links with undertakings which generate/produce, supply or trade electricity or gas - Prohibition of activity which may adversely affect system operation)
   2013/C 367/12
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staat der Nederlanden

      Defendants: Essent NV (C-105/12), Essent Nederland BV (C-105/12), Eneco Holding NV (C-106/12), Delta NV (C-107/12),

      Re:

   Requests for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 63 TFEU and 345 TFEU — Restrictions on the free movement of capital — Rules governing the system of property ownership — Meaning — National legislation providing for an absolute prohibition on the privatisation of energy distribution system operators

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 345 TFEU must be interpreted as covering rules entailing the prohibition of privatisation, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which have the effect that shares held in an electricity or gas distribution system operator active in the Netherlands must be held, directly or indirectly, by the public authorities identified by the national legislation. However, that interpretation does not mean that Article 63 TFEU does not apply to provisions of national law, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibit the privatisation of electricity or gas distribution system operators, or, further, which prohibit, first, ownership or control links between companies which are members of the same group as an electricity or gas distribution system operator active in the Netherlands and companies which are members of the same group as an undertaking which produces, supplies, or trades in electricity or gas in the Netherlands and, secondly, engagement by such an operator and by the group of which it is a member in transactions or activities which may adversely affect the operation of the system concerned.

               2.

               As regards the rules entailing the prohibition of privatisation at issue in the main proceedings, which falls within the scope of Article 345 TFEU, the objectives which underlie the choice of the legislature in relation to the adopted rules governing the system of property ownership may be taken into consideration as overriding reasons in the public interest to justify the restriction on the free movement of capital. As regards the other prohibitions, the objectives of combating cross-subsidisation in the broad sense, including exchange of strategic information, in order to achieve transparency in the electricity and gas markets, and to prevent distortions of competition may, as overriding reasons in the public interest, justify restrictions on the free movement of capital caused by provisions of national law, such as those at issue in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 26.05.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2005 in Case C-495/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Intermodal Transport BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classification in the combined nomenclature — Heading 8709 — ‘Magnum ET120 Terminal Tractor’ — Article 234 EC — Obligation of a national court to refer a question for a preliminary ruling — Conditions — Binding tariff information issued for a third party by the customs authorities of another Member State concerning a similar vehicle)

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 15 September 2005
   in Case C-495/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Intermodal Transport BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Classification in the combined nomenclature - Heading 8709 - ‘Magnum ET120 Terminal Tractor’ - Article 234 EC - Obligation of a national court to refer a question for a preliminary ruling - Conditions - Binding tariff information issued for a third party by the customs authorities of another Member State concerning a similar vehicle)
   (2005/C 271/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-495/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 21 November 2003, received at the Court on 24 November 2003, in the proceedings between Intermodal Transport BV and Staatssecretaris van Financiën — the Court (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 234 EC must be interpreted as meaning that when, in proceedings relating to the tariff classification of specific goods before a national court or tribunal, a binding tariff information relating to similar goods issued to a person not party to the dispute by the customs authorities of another Member State is submitted, and that court or tribunal takes the view that the tariff classification made in that information is wrong, those two circumstances:

                           —

                           cannot result, in respect of a court or tribunal against whose decisions there is a judicial remedy under national law, in the court or tribunal being under an obligation to refer to the Court questions on interpretation;

                           —

                           cannot, in themselves, automatically result, in respect of a court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, in the court or tribunal being under an obligation to refer to the Court questions on interpretation.

                     A court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law is, however, required, where a question of Community law is raised before it, to comply with its obligation to make a reference, unless it has established that the question raised is irrelevant or that the Community provision in question has already been interpreted by the Court or that the correct application of Community law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt. The existence of such a possibility must be assessed in the light of the specific characteristics of Community law, the particular difficulties to which its interpretation gives rise and the risk of divergences in judicial decisions within the Community; the existence of the abovementioned binding tariff information must cause that court or tribunal to take particular care in its assessment of whether there is no reasonable doubt as to the correct application of the combined nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2261/98 of 26 October 1998, taking account, in particular, of the three criteria mentioned above.

               2.

               Heading 8709 of the combined nomenclature must be interpreted as not covering a vehicle equipped with a diesel engine having an output of 132 kilowatts at 2 500 revolutions per minute and automatic transmission with four forward gears and one reverse gear, fitted with a closed cab and a fifth wheel allowing a lift height of 60 centimetres, which has a maximum carrying capacity of 32 000 kilograms, a very small turning circle and is designed for moving semi-trailers on industrial premises and in industrial buildings. Such a vehicle is neither a works truck used for the transport of goods nor a tractor of the type used in railway stations, within the meaning of that heading.

      (1)  OJ C 21 of 24.01.2004.


title: Case C-173/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Fabrizio Cariulo v Ministero dell’Interno

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/32

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Fabrizio Cariulo v Ministero dell’Interno
      (Case C-173/10)
      (2010/C 161/47)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Fabrizio Cariulo

         Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

         Question referred

      Is a national system under national legislation (introduced as from the Bersani Decree, Decree-Law No 223 of 4 July 2006, converted into Law No 248 of 4 August 2006) compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty, when it, inter alia:

                  (a)

                  tends generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period following a tendering procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators;

                  (b)

                  in fact ensures the maintenance of acquired commercial positions (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence);

                  (c)

                  provides for cases in which the licence may lapse when the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross- border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence?


title: Judgment of the Court of 9 September 2003 in Case C-198/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio): Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Competition law — National legislation anti-competitive — National competition authority's power to declare such legislation inapplicable — Circumstances in which undertakings not answerable for anti-competitive conduct)

text:
1.11.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 264/9
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             —      may impose penalties on the undertakings concerned in
                                                                                respect of past conduct where the conduct was merely
                                                                                facilitated or promoted by the national legislation, whilst
                         of 9 September 2003                                               taking due account of the specific features of the legislative
                                                                                framework in which the undertakings acted;
in Case C-198/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     2.    It is for the referring court to assess whether national legislation
the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio):                               such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which
Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) v Autorità Garante                             competence to fix the retail selling prices of a product is
               della Concorrenza e del Mercato (1)                                  delegated to a ministry and power to allocate production
                                                                                between undertakings is entrusted to a consortium to which the
                                                                                relevant producers are obliged to belong, may be regarded,
(Competition law — National legislation anti-competitive                            for the purposes of Article 81(1) EC, as precluding those
— National competition authority’s power to declare such                            undertakings from engaging in autonomous conduct which
legislation inapplicable — Circumstances in which undertak-                         remains capable of preventing, restricting or distorting compe-
       ings not answerable for anti-competitive conduct)                            tition.
                            (2003/C 264/14)                                   (1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
In Case C-198/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                                             of 11 September 2003
EC by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF)                in Case C-207/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
and Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, on the                  the Corte d’appello di Firenze): Altair Chimica SpA v
interpretation of Article 81 EC, the Court, composed of:                                           ENEL Distribuzione SpA (1)
G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet
(Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-                       (Competition — Dominant position — Supply of electricity
bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann,                                      — Imposition of a ‘sovrapprezzo’)
V. Skouris, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 September                                            (2003/C 264/15)
2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
1.    Where undertakings engage in conduct contrary to Article 81(1)
      EC and where that conduct is required or facilitated by national        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      legislation which legitimises or reinforces the effects of the                                in the European Court Reports)
      conduct, specifically with regard to price-fixing or market-
      sharing arrangements, a national competition authority, one of
      whose responsibilities is to ensure that Article 81 EC is
                                                                              In Case C-207/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      observed:
                                                                              EC by the Corte d’appello di Firenze (Italy) for a preliminary
                                                                              ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
      —      has a duty to disapply the national legislation;                 Altair Chimica SpA and ENEL Distribuzione SpA on the
                                                                              interpretation of Articles 81, 82 and 85 EC, Council Directive
                                                                              92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements
      —      may not impose penalties in respect of past conduct on
                                                                              for products subject to excise duty and on the holding,
             the undertakings concerned when the conduct was required
                                                                              movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76,
             by the national legislation;
                                                                              p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 96/99/EC of 30 Decem-
                                                                              ber 1996 (OJ 1997 L 8, p. 12), and Council Recommendation
      —      may impose penalties on the undertakings concerned in            81/924/EEC of 27 October 1981 on electricity tariff structures
             respect of conduct subsequent to the decision to disapply        in the Community (OJ 1981 L 337, p. 12), the Court (Sixth
             the national legislation, once the decision has become           Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
             definitive in their regard;                                      Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken


title: Case C-273/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem (Netherlands), lodged on 16 July 2009 — Premis Medical BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam, kantoor Rotterdam Laan op Zuid

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem (Netherlands), lodged on 16 July 2009 — Premis Medical BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam, kantoor Rotterdam Laan op Zuid
   (Case C-273/09)
   2009/C 267/49
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Haarlem

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Premis Medical BV

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam, kantoor Rotterdam Laan op Zuid

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 729/2004 (1) of 15 April 2004, published on 20 April 2004 in Official Journal of the European Union L 113, page 5, with a corrigendum published on 7 May 2004 in Official Journal of the European Union L 173, page 9, valid in the sense that the annex contained in the corrigendum is the valid annex? If so:

               2.

               Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 729/2004 of 15 April 2004, published on 20 April 2004 in Official Journal of the European Union L 113, page 5, with a corrigendum published on 7 May 2004 in Official Journal of the European Union L 173, page 9, invalid on the ground that the Commission has restricted the scope of heading 9021 in that regulation? If the regulation is valid:

               3.

               Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 729/2004 of 15 April 2004, published on 20 April 2004 in Official Journal of the European Union L 113, page 5, with a corrigendum published on 7 May 2004 in Official Journal of the European Union L 173, page 9, invalid on the ground that the Commission has incorrectly classified the rollator in the CN?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 729/2004 of 15 April 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2004 L 113, p. 5).


title: Case C-303/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2015 — European Commission v Jørgen Andersen, Kingdom of Denmark, Danske Statsbaner SV (DSB) (Appeal — Competition — State aid — Aid granted by the Danish authorities to the public undertaking Danske Statsbaner (DSB) — Public service contracts for the supply of passenger rail transport services between Copenhagen (Denmark) and Ystad (Sweden) — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market subject to conditions — Temporal application of rules of substantive law)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2015 — European Commission v Jørgen Andersen, Kingdom of Denmark, Danske Statsbaner SV (DSB)
   (Case C-303/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - State aid - Aid granted by the Danish authorities to the public undertaking Danske Statsbaner (DSB) - Public service contracts for the supply of passenger rail transport services between Copenhagen (Denmark) and Ystad (Sweden) - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market subject to conditions - Temporal application of rules of substantive law))
   (2015/C 389/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Jørgen Andersen (represented by: J. Rivas Andrés, G. van de Walle de Ghelcke and M. Nissen, avocats), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning and V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents, and by R. Holdgaard, advokat), Danske Statsbaner SV (DSB) (represented by: M. Honoré, advokat)

      Intervener in support of Jørgen Andersen: Dansk Tog (represented by: G. van de Walle de Ghelcke, J. Rivas Andrés and M. Nissen, avocats)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Andersen v Commission (T-92/11, EU:T:2013:143) in so far as, by that judgment, as regards the aid paid from 3 December 2009 under the second public transport service contract concluded for the years 2005 to 2014, the General Court annulled the second paragraph of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2011/3/EU of 24 February 2010 concerning public transport service contracts between the Danish Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner (Case C 41/08 (ex NN 35/08));

               2.

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               3.

               Dismisses the cross-appeals;

               4.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment, in the light of the three pleas of the application, taking account of Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70, on the legality of Decision 2011/3 in so far as it declared that the aid paid from 3 December 2009 under the second public transport service contract concluded for the years 2005 to 2014 was compatible with the internal market;

               5.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case T-194/07: Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Czech Republic v Commission

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/38

         Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Czech Republic v Commission
   (Case T-194/07)
   (2007/C 199/74)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: T. Boček, Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1294 final version of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Czech Republic in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. (1) According to the contested decision, certain aspects of the Czech Republic's national allocation plan do not comply with Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC.
   The applicant submits that the Commission has infringed Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC, as well as the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectation, by failing to published the contested decision within the time limit laid down by Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC.
   In addition, the applicant states that the Commission exceeded its power and thus infringed Article 9(3) in conjunction with Articles 9(1) and 11(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC in that, in the contested decision, it applied its own method for fixing the maximum quantity of allowances and on basis of that method in fact laid down, in binding form, the total quantity of allowances which the Czech Republic is entitled to allocate.
   Even if the Commission were entitled to use its own method for establishing that the national allocation plan complies with the requirements of Directive 2003/87/EC, it infringed Article 9(3) of that directive in that (i) the method it used was neither transparent nor objective and (ii) the resulting quantity of emissions allowances does not comply with the criteria laid down in Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC by failing adequately to state reasons.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive [96/61/EC] (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).


title: Case T-207/14: Order of the General Court of 27 January 2015 — Aluwerk Hettstedt v ECHA

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/39

         Order of the General Court of 27 January 2015 — Aluwerk Hettstedt v ECHA
   (Case T-207/14) (1)

   (2015/C 127/53)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.


title: Case C-275/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 5 (Commercial Court No 5)/Madrid lodged on 26 June 2006 — Productores de Música de España v Telefónica de España SAU

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 5 (Commercial Court No 5)/Madrid lodged on 26 June 2006 — Productores de Música de España v Telefónica de España SAU
   (Case C-275/06)
   (2006/C 212/33)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 5 (Commercial Court No 5)/ Madrid
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Productores de Música de España (Promusicae)

      Defendant: Telefónica de España SAU
   Question referred
   Does Community law, in particular Articles 15(2) and 18 of Directive 2000/31/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market; Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/29/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society; Article 8 of Directive 2004/48/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights; and Articles 17(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, permit Member States to limit the duty of operators of electronic communications networks and services, providers of telecommunications network access and providers of data storage services to retain and make available connection and traffic information generated during the supply of an information society service to where it is required in connection with a criminal investigation or the need to protect public safety and national defence, thus excluding civil proceedings?

      (1)  OJ L 178, p. l.

      (2)  OJ L 167, p. 10.

      (3)  OJ L 157, p. 45.


title: Case C-331/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Amsterdam, Netherlands) — K.D. Chuck v Raad van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank (Old-age insurance — Worker who is a national of a Member State — Social security contributions — Separate periods — Different Member States — Calculation of periods of insurance — Application for a pension — Residence in a non-Member State)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Amsterdam, Netherlands) — K.D. Chuck v Raad van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank
   (Case C-331/06) (1)

   (Old-age insurance - Worker who is a national of a Member State - Social security contributions - Separate periods - Different Member States - Calculation of periods of insurance - Application for a pension - Residence in a non-Member State)
   (2008/C 128/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank te Amsterdam
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: K.D. Chuck

      Defendant: Raad van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Amsterdam — Interpretation of Article 48 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) — Old-age pension insurance — Calculation of insurance periods of a national of a Member State who has worked in two other Member States — Residence in a non-member State at the date of retirement
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 48(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Regulation (EC) No 631/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, requires the competent institution of the last Member State in which a worker who is a national of a Member State resided to take into account, in calculating the old age pension of that worker, who, when he submits his pension claim, is resident in a non-Member State, of the periods worked in another Member State under the same conditions as if that worker still resided in the European Community.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.


title: Case C-534/09: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 December 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2008/1/EC — Pollution prevention and control — Requirements for the granting of permits for existing installations)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/9

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 December 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-534/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2008/1/EC - Pollution prevention and control - Requirements for the granting of permits for existing installations)
   2011/C 30/14
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8) — Requirements for the granting of permits for existing installations — Obligation to ensure that such installations operate in accordance with the requirements of the directive

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent national authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (Codified version) or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of that directive, not later than 30 October 2007, without prejudice to specific Community legislation, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Case T-567/15: Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Mad Catz Interactive (Representation of a black square with four white stripes)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/55

         Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Mad Catz Interactive (Representation of a black square with four white stripes)
   (Case T-567/15)
   (2015/C 381/65)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mad Catz Interactive, Inc. (San Diego, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark (representation of a black square with four white stripes) — Application for registration No 11 390 853

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 July 2015 in Case R 2368/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 4 May 2015 in Case R 2368/2014-5;

               —

               annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 1 July 2015 in opposition No B2182320;

               —

               reject the opposed mark in respect of class 25;

               —

               order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the opponent.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-251/15 P: Appeal brought on 26 May 2015 by Emsibeth SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 March 2015 in Case T-596/13, Emsibeth v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/16

         Appeal brought on 26 May 2015 by Emsibeth SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 March 2015 in Case T-596/13, Emsibeth v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-251/15 P)
   (2015/C 311/21)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Emsibeth SpA (represented by: A. Arpaia, avvocato)

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

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal (judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 March 2015 in Case T-596/13);

               —

               decide the case on its merits;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred at first instance.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The applicant alleges infringement or misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1). In particular, there is a lack of coherence in that judgment in relation to the criteria under which the General Court assessed the concepts of (i) the relevant public, identity or similarity of the (ii) products and of the (iii) trademarks and also (iv) the existence of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.

               (i)

               The judgment under appeal is vitiated by inconsistency given that, even though the average consumer — identified as the relevant public — is characterised as being a ‘well-informed and cautious observer’, however, when the General Court proceeds to assess in substance the actual ability of that consumer to discern between two clearly different marks, it regards that consumer as being wholly superficial and unable to carry out, on his own, evaluations of marginal difficulty.

               (ii)

               The judgment under appeal appears to be at odds with the EU case-law which states that, in assessing the similarity of the goods, account should be taken of all relevant features relating to those goods including their nature, purpose, method of use, whether they are in competition or are complementary, as well as the distribution channels of the products. The General Court failed in fact to consider any of those factors, limiting its assessment to the mere finding that the products to colour and decolour hair were ‘included’ in cosmetics and that therefore those products should be considered to be identical.

               (iii)

               The judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error in so far as the comparison between a word mark and a composite mark gave too little weight to the figurative elements of the second mark, which were not present in the first mark and capable of distinguishing the two signs, limiting its assessment to the comparison between the verbal parts alone.
               The General Court also erred, in the judgment under appeal by excluding from the comparison the first element of the earlier mark (Mc) and did not consider that such a prefix, where placed in front of a name and in view of its widespread use, is commonly understood as a surname of Scottish origin and accordingly pronounced in English by all the relevant public and not just by the Anglo-Saxon part of the relevant public.

               (iv)

               The judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error in so far as, despite the many differences between the two marks being compared, the General Court considered that there was a likelihood of confusion.

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


title: Case T-473/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2009 — Apollo Group v OHIM (THINKING AHEAD) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark THINKING AHEAD — 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))

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/26

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2009 — Apollo Group v OHIM (THINKING AHEAD)
   (Case T-473/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark THINKING AHEAD - 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))
   2010/C 11/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Apollo Group Inc. (Phoenix, Arizona, United States) (represented by: A. Link and A. Jaeger-Lenz, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 August 2008 (Case R 728/2008-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign THINKING AHEAD as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Apollo Group, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.


title: Case T-456/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — International Cadmium Association (ICdA) and Others v European Commission (REACH — Transitional measures concerning the restrictions on the manufacture, marketing and use of cadmium and its compounds — Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Restrictions on the use of cadmium pigments in plastic materials — Manifest error of assessment — Risk analysis)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — International Cadmium Association (ICdA) and Others v European Commission
   (Case T-456/11) (1)

   (REACH - Transitional measures concerning the restrictions on the manufacture, marketing and use of cadmium and its compounds - Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Restrictions on the use of cadmium pigments in plastic materials - Manifest error of assessment - Risk analysis)
   2013/C 377/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: International Cadmium Association (ICdA), established in Brussels (Belgium), Rockwood Pigments (UK) Ltd, established in Stoke-on-Trent (United Kingdom), James M Brown Ltd, established in Stoke-on-Trent (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and R. Cana, lawyers, and subsequently by R. Cana,)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents, assisted by K. Sawyer, barrister, and subsequently by P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve,)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 494/2011 of 20 May 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (Cadmium) (OJ 2011 L 134, p. 2), in so far as it established restrictions on the use of cadmium in plastic materials other than those in respect of which that use was restricted before the adoption of Regulation No 494/2011

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Regulation (EU) No 494/2011 of 20 May 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (Cadmium) in so far as it restricts the use of cadmium sulpho-selenide orange (No CAS 1256-57-4), cadmium sulpho-selenide red (No CAS 58339-34-7) and cadmium zinc sulphide (No CAS 8048 07-5) in mixtures and articles produced from synthetic organic polymers other than those in respect of which that use was restricted before the adoption of Regulation No 494/2011;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear 90 % of its own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by International Cadmium Association (ICdA), Rockwood Pigments (UK) Ltd and James M Brown Ltd;

               4.

               Orders ICdA, Rockwood Pigments (UK) and James M Brown to bear 10 % of their own costs and to pay 10 % of the costs incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Case T-105/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014  — Ludwig Schokolade v OHIM — Immergut (TrinkFix) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark TrinkFix — Earlier national and Community word marks Drinkfit — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — Ludwig Schokolade v OHIM — Immergut (TrinkFix)
   (Case T-105/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark TrinkFix - Earlier national and Community word marks Drinkfit - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 046/57)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ludwig Schokolade GmbH & Co. KG (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) (represented by: S. Fischer and A. Brodkorb, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Immergut GmbH & Co. KG (Elsdorf, Germany) (represented by: G. Schoenen, V. Töbelmann and S. Frenz, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 December 2012 (affaire R 34/2012-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Immergut GmbH & Co. KG and Ludwig Schokolade GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Ludwig Schokolade GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.


title: Case C-517/06: Action brought on 20 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/14

         Action brought on 20 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-517/06)
   (2007/C 42/24)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and E. Montaguti)

      Defendants: Republic of Austria
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt, in the Steiermark and Salzburg Länder, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired on 1 July 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90.