title: Case C-24/00: Action brought on 27 January 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 149/12                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         27.5.2000
the Rome Bar, and F.M. Moretti, of the Venice Bar, with an                  exceptional cases since measures of that kind restrict trade
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger,              between Member States. The importer of a food product must
Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill, appeal against the               be able to choose between maintaining the name under which
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                     the product is sold in the Member State of production or
Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of                        adopting the name under which similar products are sold in
14 May 1998 in Case T-334/94 Sarrió v Commission [1998]                    the Member State of importation (1). Such freedom of choice
ECR II-1439, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other             may only be restricted if the product presented under a
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European                  particular name is so remote, as regards its composition or
Communities (Agent: R. Lyal, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) — the                manufacture, from the goods usually known by that name in
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of D.A.O. Edward, President                 the Community that it could not be regarded as falling into
of the Chamber, L. Sevón, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and                        the same category (2).
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: J. Mischo,
Registrar: R. Grass, made an order on 9 March 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:                                      Chocolate containing up to 5 % vegetable fat other than cocoa
                                                                            butter produced in six Member States meets, as far as cocoa-
1. The requests by Sarrió SA that a hearing be held and, in the            related ingredients are concerned, the same composition
    alternative, that it be authorised to lodge a reply are rejected;       requirements as chocolate which contains no vegetable fat, the
                                                                            only difference being the presence of up to 5 % of such
                                                                            substances; it is accepted under the name ‘chocolate’ in almost
2. The costs are reserved.
                                                                            all the Member States and it is manufactured under that name
                                                                            in six of them. It is referred to in Directive 73/241/EC itself by
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.                                                  that name. Accordingly, the Commission considers that it
                                                                            cannot be alleged that the presence of such substances
                                                                            significantly alters the nature of the product to such an extent
                                                                            that the name ‘chocolate’ is misleading as to its essential
                                                                            characteristics. As regards consumer protection, the Com-
                                                                            mission considers that the inclusion on the label of a neutral
                                                                            and objective statement which informs consumers of the
                                                                            presence of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter is the best
                                                                            way of ensuring the free circulation of those products in Spain
Action brought on 14 January 2000 by the Commission
                                                                            whilst at the same time ensuring that Spanish consumers are
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                            protected.
                                 Spain
                            (Case C-12/00)                                  (1) Point 18 of Communication 89/C 271/03 on the free movement
                                                                                of foodstuffs within the Community — OJ 1989 C 271, p. 3.
                           (2000/C 149/20)                                  (2) The conditions under which a Member State may legitimately
                                                                                reject the use of a name liable to mislead consumers are set out in
                                                                                the Commission Communication on trade names of food products
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                       — OJ 1991 C 270, p. 2.
Court of Justice on 14 January 2000 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Gregorio Valero
Jordana, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
— Declare that, by prohibiting cocoa and chocolate products                 Action brought on 27 January 2000 by the Commission
    to which vegetable fats other than cocoa butter have been               of the European Communities against the French Republic
    added and which have been lawfully produced in those
    Member States in which the addition thereof is permitted,                                          (Case C-24/00)
    from being marketed in Spain under the name used for
    their marketing in the Member State in which they
    originate, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its                                          (2000/C 149/21)
    obligations under Article 28 EC;
— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                              An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 January
                                                                            2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser,
Pleas and principal arguments                                               and Olivier Couvert-Castéra, a national civil servant seconded
                                                                            to the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
Infringement of Article 28 EC: the obligation to change the                 service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
name under which a product is sold can only be justified in                 Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.5.2000               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 149/13
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            to the full authorisation procedure — entailing an inquiry by
                                                                       the Conseil Supérieur d’Hygiène Publique de France and in
                                                                       some cases by the Académie Nationale de Médecine — which
— Declare that the French Republic has failed to fulfil its            does not set any deadline for the handling of applications,
     obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after         which, in practice, is not completed within a reasonable
     amendment, Article 28 EC) in so far as:                           period. Lastly, the French legislation does not satisfy the
                                                                       requirement that any refusal to grant authorisation must entail
                                                                       certain procedural steps so as to ensure that the trader
     — French legislation fails to provide for the free move-          concerned can challenge that decision before the courts.
         ment of traditional foodstuffs and foodstuffs intended
         for special nutritional purposes, which are lawfully
         manufactured and/or marketed in other Member States
         but contain additives (such as vitamins, minerals and
         other ingredients) not provided for under the French
         legislation;
                                                                       Action brought on 29 January 2000 by the Kingdom of
     — in particular, French legislation fails to provide a            the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
         simplified procedure for having a substance entered on                                   Communities
         the national list of permitted additives, which is
         necessary if the above foodstuffs are to be marketed in
         France;                                                                                (Case C-26/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 149/22)
     — the French authorities have impeded the marketing of
         the above foodstuffs in France without establishing           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
         that they would pose a danger to public health;               ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                       Communities on 29 January 2000 by the Kingdom of the
                                                                       Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra, Head of the Euro-
— Order the French Republic to pay the costs of the                    pean Law Section in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The
     proceedings.                                                      Hague, and Jantine van Bakel, Member of the Legal Service in
                                                                       that Ministry, acting as Agents.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        1. Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2423/1999 (1) of
                                                                            15 November 1999 introducing safeguard measures in
                                                                            respect of sugar falling within CN code 1701 and mixtures
                                                                            of sugar and cocoa falling within CN codes 1806 10 30
Infringement of Article 28 EC: in the absence of any Com-                   and 1806 10 90 originating in the overseas countries and
munity measure harmonising the approach to additives in                     territories;
traditional foodstuffs, or in foodstuffs intended for special
nutritional purposes, which have not been the subject of a
                                                                       2. Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
specific directive, it is for the Member States to define in their
national legislation the applicable rules, provided that these
comply with the EC Treaty, specifically with Articles 28 and
30 EC. On that point, the Commission maintains that, whereas           Pleas in law and main arguments
it is permissible for legislation pursuing a legitimate health
policy objective to set up a prior authorisation system, the           — Infringement of Article 109(1) of Council Decision
Member States have no right to require technical or chemical                91/482/EEC, as amended (‘the OCT Decision’), so far as
analyses or laboratory tests in cases where the same analyses               sugar is concerned (CN code 1701): the Commission has
and tests have already been carried out in another Member                   in this case failed to adduce the evidence necessary to
State and the results are already to hand or available upon                 establish that there are ‘serious difficulties’ and that safe-
request. The French legislation, however, makes no provision                guard measures must be taken. In particular, the quantities
for mutual recognition in this area, with a view to ensuring                of OCT sugar in question are extremely small in both
the free movement of products lawfully manufactured or                      absolute and relative terms. At no time has the Commission
marketed in another Member State and which meet standards                   been able to provide the slightest evidence whatsoever that
equivalent to those set in France for the protection of public              OCT sugar is being sold at below the intervention price.
health. Nor does the French legislation provide for a simplified            The Commission has also misused its powers inasmuch as
procedure for having a substance lawfully used in another                   the measures are clearly designed to protect European
Member State entered on the national list of permitted                      sugar producers against any potential competition from
additives. Thus, under the French rules, foodstuffs already                 imports from outside the Community that are not subject
manufactured or marketed in another Member State are subject                to quota.


title: Case T-28/13: Order of the General Court of 21 October 2015 — ECC Couture v OHIM — Ball Wholesale (Culture)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/29

         Order of the General Court of 21 October 2015 — ECC Couture v OHIM — Ball Wholesale (Culture)
   (Case T-28/13) (1)

   (2015/C 429/38)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


title: Case C-182/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Glaxo Wellcome GmbH & Co. v Finanzamt München II (Freedom of establishment and free movement of capital — Corporation tax — Acquisition of shares in a capital company — Conditions for taking into account, when determining the acquirer’s tax base, the reduction in value of the shares resulting from the dividend distribution)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/18

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Glaxo Wellcome GmbH & Co. v Finanzamt München II
   (Case C-182/08) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment and free movement of capital - Corporation tax - Acquisition of shares in a capital company - Conditions for taking into account, when determining the acquirer’s tax base, the reduction in value of the shares resulting from the dividend distribution)
   2009/C 267/31
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Glaxo Wellcome GmbH & Co.

      Defendant: Finanzamt München II

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 43 and 56 EC — Acquisition by a taxpayer who is entitled to a corporation tax credit of shares in a capital company which is fully taxable — National legislation providing for the taking into account, when determining the acquirer’s tax base, of depreciation of the shares by reason of the payment of dividends where the shares were acquired from a shareholder who is entitled to a corporation tax credit, but which excludes that reduction of the tax base where the shares were acquired from a shareholder who is not entitled to a tax credit of that kind

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which excludes the reduction in value of shares as a result of the distribution of dividends from the basis of assessment for a resident taxpayer, where that taxpayer has acquired shares in a resident capital company from a non-resident shareholder, whereas, had the shares been acquired from a resident shareholder, such a reduction in value would have reduced the acquirer’s basis of assessment.
   This applies in cases where such legislation does not exceed what is necessary to maintain a balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between the Member States and to prevent wholly artificial arrangements which do not reflect economic reality and whose only purpose is unduly to obtain a tax advantage. It is for the national court to examine whether the legislation at issue in the main proceedings is limited to what is necessary in order to attain those objectives.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


title: Case C-163/03: Action brought on 8 April 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
7.6.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 135/19
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                            tion into groundwater of substances in list II of Directive
Ordinario di Milano by order of that Court of 21 February                      80/68/EEC so as to avoid pollution of that water by these
2003 in the case of Azienda Agricola (farm) owned by                           substances, by not subjecting to prior investigation any
Andrea Balconi (ex Guido) against Region of Lombardy                           disposal or tipping for the purpose of disposal of the
        and AGEA (Agency for Agricultural subsidies)                           dangerous substances in list I of Directive 80/68/EEC,
                                                                               which might lead to indirect discharge, and by not
                                                                               subjecting to prior investigation all direct discharge of
                          (Case C-162/03)                                      substances in list II of Directive 80/68/EEC and the
                                                                               disposal or tipping for the purpose of disposal of those
                                                                               substances which might lead to indirect discharge, the
                          (2003/C 135/27)
                                                                               Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                               Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Directive 80/68/EEC of
                                                                               17 December 1979 ( 1) on the protection of groundwater
                                                                               against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Ordinario di
                                                                         —     declare that, by failing to failing to take the necessary
Milano (Milan District Court) of 21 February 2003, received at
                                                                               measures to record and identify hazardous waste in the
the Court Registry on 7 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                               Thriasio Pedio area, where tipping (discharge) of such
in the case of Azienda Agricola (farm) owned by Andrea
                                                                               waste takes place, and, by failing to draw up, either
Balconi (ex Guido) against Region of Lombardy and AGEA
                                                                               separately or in the framework of their general waste
(Agency for Agricultural subsidies) on the following question:
                                                                               management plans, plans for the management of hazard-
                                                                               ous waste in the Thriasio Pedio area, the Hellenic Republic
Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1) of 31 March                   has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) and
1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 (2) of                       6(1) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December
28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the                            1991 on hazardous waste ( 2);
additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of
an administrative penalty with the result that producers are
liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been               —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?
( 1) OJ L 90 of 01.04.1984, p. 10.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
( 2) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
                                                                         —     Infringement of Directive 80/68/EEC
                                                                         —     Infringement of Directive 91/689/EEC.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43.
Action brought on 8 April 2003 by the Commission of                      (2 ) OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20.
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                          (Case C-163/03)
                          (2003/C 135/28)
                                                                         Action brought on 10 April 2003 by the Commission of
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before                the European Communities against the French Republic
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by V. Jordana and M. Konstantinidis, of its Legal                                      (Case C-166/03)
Service.
                                                                                (2003/C 135/29)
The Commission claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to take the necessary steps to
      prevent the introduction into groundwater of substances            An action against the French Republic was brought before the
      in list I of Directive 80/68/EEC and to limit the introduc-        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 April


title: Case T-293/09: Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — CNIEL v Commission (State aid — Framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented — Financing by voluntary levies made compulsory — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the common market — Withdrawal of the decision — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/41

         Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — CNIEL v Commission
   (Case T-293/09) (1)

   ((State aid - Framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented - Financing by voluntary levies made compulsory - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the common market - Withdrawal of the decision - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 175/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Centre national interprofessionnel de l’économie laitière (CNIEL) (Paris, France) (represented initially by: A. Cabanes and V. Kostrzewski-Pugnat, subsequently by: A. Cabanes, A.-C. Jeux and L. Sersiron, and finally by: A. Cabanes, L. Sersiron and M. Spy, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, subsequently by: B. Stromsky and S. Thomas, and finally by: B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final of 10 December 2008 concerning State aid No 561/2008, on the framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               The European Commission shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.


title: Case T-543/08: Action brought on 15 December 2008 — RWE and RWE Dea v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/30

         Action brought on 15 December 2008 — RWE and RWE Dea v Commission
   (Case T-543/08)
   (2009/C 55/56)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: RWE AG (Essen, Germany) and RWE Dea AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Stadler and M. Röhrig, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare Article 1 of the decision to be void, in so far as it finds that there was an infringement by the applicants of Article 81(1) EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement;

               —

               declare Article 2 of the decision to be void, in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 37 440 000 jointly and severely on the applicants;

               —

               in the alternative, make an appropriate reduction in the fine imposed jointly and severely on the applicants in Article 2 of the decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are challenging Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 in Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes, in which the defendant established that certain undertakings, including the applicants, had participated in a continuing agreement and/or concerted practice in the paraffin waxes sector, contrary to Article 81(1) EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.
   The applicants rely on the following three pleas in law in support of their action.
   In their first plea, the applicants claim that the defendant breached Article 81(1) EC and Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) by erroneously applying the notion of undertaking to the detriment of the applicants. The defendant held the applicants responsible for infringements by the former DEA Mineraloel AG and/or — after re-organisation of the company into an equally owned joint venture with Shell — the Shell & Dea Oil GmbH and, for that reason, imposed a fine on them without having established that they formed a single economic unit.
   Alternatively, the applicants claim in their second plea that the defendant did not properly apply the Leniency Notice of 2002 and thereby infringed the principle of equal treatment, because it did not extend the leniency application for the paraffin wax business made by the former DEA Mineraloel AG and/or Shell & Dea Oil GmbH to the applicants. By so doing, the defendant contradicts its own view that the paraffin wax business was specifically part of the same economic unit as the applicants in the period from 3 September 1992 to 30 July 2002. Had the Leniency Notice been correctly applied, the defendant should have granted the applicants full immunity from any fine.
   Alternatively, the applicants claim in their third plea that the defendant infringed fundamental principles governing the assessment of fines, in particular the principles of equal treatment and proportionality, and in that way infringed Article 23(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1/2003. The defendant incorrectly applied the 2006 Guidelines on fines by establishing the relevant turnover on the basis of a reference period which was not sufficiently representative, and thus determined a basic amount which was not proportionate to the severity of the infringement alleged against the applicants, and treated the applicants, by comparison with other involved parties, including Shell, in a discriminatory manner without objective grounds.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case T-90/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2014  — Herdade de S. Tiago II v OHIM — Polo/Lauren (V) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark V — Earlier Community, national and Benelux figurative marks representing a polo player — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2014 — Herdade de S. Tiago II v OHIM — Polo/Lauren (V)
   (Case T-90/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark V - Earlier Community, national and Benelux figurative marks representing a polo player - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2014/C 388/16
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Herdade de S. Tiago II — Sociedade Agrícola, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: I. de Carvalho Simões and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: The Polo/Lauren Company, LP (New York, United States) (represented by: R. Black and S. Davies, Solicitors)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2012 (Case R 2240/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between The Polo/Lauren Company, LP and Herdade de S. Tiago II — Sociedade Agrícola, SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Herdade de S. Tiago II — Sociedade Agrícola, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.


title: Case C-61/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento (Italy) lodged on 7 February 2014  — Orizzonte Salute — Studio Infermieristico Associato v Azienda Pubblica di Servizi alla persona ‘San Valentino’ and Others

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento (Italy) lodged on 7 February 2014 — Orizzonte Salute — Studio Infermieristico Associato v Azienda Pubblica di Servizi alla persona ‘San Valentino’ and Others
   (Case C-61/14)
   2014/C 135/25
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Orizzonte Salute — Studio Infermieristico Associato

      Defendants: Azienda Pubblica di Servizi alla persona ‘San Valentino’ — Città di Levico Terme, Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Segretario Generale del Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento

      Other party to the proceedings: Associazione Infermieristica D & F. Care

      Question referred

   Do the principles laid down in Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC (2) of 18 June 1992, as subsequently amended and added to, preclude a provision of national law, such as that set out in Article 13(1a), (1c) and (6a) and in Article 14(3b) of Decree of the President of the Republic No 115 of 30 May 2002 (as progressively amended by subsequent legislative interventions) which laid down high amounts of the standard fee for access to administrative proceedings relating to public contracts?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).

      (2)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).


               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/13

         Removal from the register of Case C-95/05 (1)

   (2005/C 330/34)

      Language of the case: Greek

   By order of 20 September 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-95/05 Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case C-92/08: Action brought on 28 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/13

         Action brought on 28 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-92/08)
   (2008/C 116/23)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven, Agent)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees (1), or by not ensuring that management and labour introduce the required provisions by way of agreement, or, in any case, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2003/72/EC expired on 18 August 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 207, p. 25.


title: Case C-143/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — G.E. Security BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Classification of goods — Headings 8517, 8521, 8531 and 8543 — Product known as a ‘video multiplexer’)

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/12

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — G.E. Security BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-143/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Classification of goods - Headings 8517, 8521, 8531 and 8543 - Product known as a ‘video multiplexer’))
   (2016/C 145/14)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: G.E. Security BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature set out 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 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that a product such as the ‘video multiplexer’ at issue in the main proceedings must, subject to the referring court’s assessment of all the facts before it, be classified in heading 8521 of that nomenclature.

      (1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.


title: Case C-131/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Schoenimport ‘Italmoda’ Mariano Previti

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Schoenimport ‘Italmoda’ Mariano Previti
   (Case C-131/13)
   2013/C 171/24
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Other party: Schoenimport ‘Italmoda’ Mariano Previti

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should the national authorities and courts, on the basis of the law of the European Union, refuse to apply the exemption pertaining to an intra-Community supply, the right to the deduction of VAT in respect of the purchase of goods which, after the purchase, were dispatched to another Member State, or the refund of VAT pursuant to the application of the second sentence of Article 28b(A)(2) of the Sixth Directive, (1) when, based on objective data, it has been established that there has been VAT evasion in respect of the goods concerned, and that the taxable person knew, or should have known, that it had participated therein, if national law does not make provision for the refusal of the exemption, the deduction or the refund under those circumstances?

               2.

               If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, should the aforementioned exemption, deduction or refund also be refused if the VAT evasion occurred in another Member State (other than the Member State from which the goods were dispatched) and the taxable person was or should have been aware of the VAT evasion, while the taxable person in the Member State from which the goods were dispatched has met all the (formal) conditions which national statutory provisions impose on the exemption, the deduction or the refund, and it has always provided the tax authorities in that Member State with all the required information in respect of the goods, the dispatch and the persons acquiring the goods in the Member State of arrival of the goods?

               3.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative, what should be understood by ‘subject to’ in (the final part of) the first sentence of Article 28b(A)(2): the declaration in the statutorily prescribed VAT returns of the VAT payable in respect of intra-Community acquisitions in the Member State of arrival, or — in the absence of such a declaration — also the measures adopted by the tax authorities of the Member State of arrival to regularise the absence of that declaration? When answering that question, is it significant whether the transaction concerned forms part of a chain of transactions aimed at VAT evasion in the country of arrival and the taxable person was aware or should have been aware of it?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case C-328/09: Action brought on 14 August 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/17

         Action brought on 14 August 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-328/09)
   2009/C 297/21
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by M. van Beek and K. Saaremäel-Stoilov, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Estonia

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions for fully transposing Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, (1) or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of the necessary provisions for fully transposing the directive, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of the directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 21 December 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 373, p. 37.


title: Case T-399/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2014  — Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission (State aid — Provisions relating to corporate tax enabling undertakings which have their tax domicile in Spain to amortise the goodwill flowing from the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which have their tax domicile abroad — Decision classifying that scheme as State aid, declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Selectivity — Lack of identification of a category of undertakings benefitting from the measure — Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2014 — Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission
   (Case T-399/11) (1)

   ((State aid - Provisions relating to corporate tax enabling undertakings which have their tax domicile in Spain to amortise the goodwill flowing from the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which have their tax domicile abroad - Decision classifying that scheme as State aid, declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Selectivity - Lack of identification of a category of undertakings benefitting from the measure - Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU))
   (2014/C 462/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain); and Santusa Holding, SL (Boadilla del Monte, Spain) (represented initially by J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, M. Muñoz de Juan and R. Calvo Salinero, and subsequently by J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro and R. Calvo Salinero, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by R. Lyal, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Article 1(1) and Article 4 of Commission Decision 2011/282/EU of 12 January 2011 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions No C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (JO 2011 L 135, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1(1) and Article 4 of Commission Decision 2011/282/EU of 12 January 2011 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions No C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case T-44/00: Action brought on 28 February 2000 by Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 135/20              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.5.2000
Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)         — Inadmissible use of the ‘sharing-key’ paper
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                              — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)             The applicant maintains that the use of evidence supplied
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94               anonymously is generally inadmissible.
                                                                        — Inadequate statement of reasons
                                                                            The explanations in ground 68 of the contested decision,
                                                                            in particular, concerning proof of active protection of the
                                                                            home market, were contradictory and, in themselves,
                                                                            inconclusive.
Action brought on 28 February 2000 by Mannes-
mannröhren-Werke AG against the Commission of the                       — Erroneous application of Article 81(1) EC to the agreement
                    European Communities                                    with British Steel
                         (Case T-44/00)                                     This agreement was negotiated individually and contained
                                                                            no exclusive supply agreement or horizontal concertation.
                                                                            The chosen percentage link to British Steel’s total require-
                        (2000/C 135/37)
                                                                            ments and the agreed price formula were legally unobjec-
                                                                            tionable.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        — Erroneous application of the guidelines for the procedure
                                                                            in determining fines
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  The determination of the fine contained an error of
European Communities on 28 February 2000 by Mannes-                         assessment, since it did not take sufficient account of the
mannröhren-Werke AG, whose registered office is in Mülheim                  varying market significance of the undertakings concerned.
an der Ruhr (Germany), represented by Martin Klusmann,                      In addition, further extenuating grounds and the appli-
Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in                    cant’s contribution to elucidating the matter were not
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmidt, 7 Val Ste                     appropriately evaluated.
Croix.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Commission Decision K(99) 4154 endg. of
    8 December 1999, in so far as it concerns the applicant;
— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant          Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Conseil
    by that decision by an appropriate amount;                          National des Professions de l’Automobile (C.N.P.A.) and
                                                                        Others against the Commission of the European Com-
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                             munities
                                                                                (Case T-45/00)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2000/C 135/38)
The applicant is a producer of seamless steel tubes. In the
contested decision, the Commission finds infringement of
Article 81(1) EC by the applicant and several other undertak-
ings. The action is based on the following grounds in particular:                           (Language of the case: French)
— Infringement of procedural rights                                     An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    Certain parts of the investigation file were withheld from          European Communities on 29 February 2000, by the Conseil
    the applicant, contrary to the provisions on access to              National des Professions de l’Automobile (C.N.P.A.), whose
    Commission documents.                                               registered office is in Suresnes, France, the Fédération Nationale
                                                                        des Distributeurs, Loueurs et Réparateurs de Matériels de
— Infringement of rights of the defence                                 Bâtiment-Travaux Publics et de Manutention (D.L.R.), whose
                                                                        registered office is in Joinville-Le-Pont, France, Auto Contrôle
    Because of the short deadlines for replying to the heads of         31 and Yam 31 SARL, whose registered office is in Toulouse,
    complaint, the applicant did not have sufficient oppor-             France, Marc Foucher-Créteau, resident in Paris, and Verdier
    tunity to defend itself. Moreover, the in its final decision,       Distribition SARL, whose registered office is in Juvignac,
    the Commission diverged from essential accusations in the           France, represented by Christian Bourgeon, of the Paris Bar,
    heads of complaint without giving the applicant the                 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
    opportunity to amend its position.                                  François Brouxel, 6 Rue Zithe.


title: Case C-210/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes (France)) — Scott SA, Kimberly Clark SNC, now Kimberly Clark SAS v Ville d’Orléans (State aid — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 14(3) — Recovery of aid — Principle of effectiveness — Assessments vitiated by a procedural defect — Annulment)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes (France)) — Scott SA, Kimberly Clark SNC, now Kimberly Clark SAS v Ville d’Orléans
   (Case C-210/09) (1)

   (State aid - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 14(3) - Recovery of aid - Principle of effectiveness - Assessments vitiated by a procedural defect - Annulment)
   2010/C 179/21
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Scott SA, Kimberly Clark SNC, now Kimberly Clark SAS

      Defendant: Ville d’Orléans

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes — Interpretation of Article 14(3) of Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999, laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1) — Aid granted by the French authorities in favour of Scott SA and Kimberly Clark — Obligation to recover immediately the aid declared incompatible with the common market — Effect on that obligation of possible annulment, on grounds of procedural defect, of the assessments issued by the national authorities for the recovery of that aid

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88] of the EC Treaty is to be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances in which amounts corresponding to the aid in question have already been recovered, annulment by the national court of assessments issued in order to recover the unlawful State aid on grounds of there being a procedural defect, where it is possible to rectify that procedural defect under national law. That provision does, however, preclude those amounts being paid once again, even provisionally, to the beneficiary of that aid.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Case T-251/05: Action brought on 1 July 2005 by Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, SA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/51

         Action brought on 1 July 2005 by Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, SA against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-251/05)
   (2005/C 217/107)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 July 2005 by Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, SA, established in Lisbon, represented by C. Botelho Moniz and E. Maia Cadete, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul decision C(2005)1236 of the Commission of the European Communities of 14 April 2005‘reducing the amount of the assistance granted by the European Social Fund to Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, Lda in accordance with the Commission's Decision C(89) 0570 of 22 March 1989’;

               2.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Infringement of essential procedural requirements in that the Commission's decision procedure does not satisfy the formal requirements and in that insufficient justification is provided for the contested decision;
   Infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations, inasmuch as the contested decision is, to the applicant's detriment, at variance with the earlier act attesting to the factual and accounting accuracy of the documents produced by the applicant with its request for payment of the balance certified by it;
   Manifest error in the assessment of the documentary evidence of expenditure produced by Mediocurso; and
   Infringement of the principle of proportionality, with regard to the grounds of fact and law put forward in support of the reduction of assistance which is the subject-matter of the contested decision.


title: Case T-142/17: Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Kaimbi v Council

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/32

         Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Kaimbi v Council
   (Case T-142/17)
   (2017/C 129/48)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Delphin Kaimbi (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: O. Okito, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 implementing Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Mr Delphin Kaimbi;

               —

               order the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant and all interveners.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-139/17, Kibelisa v Council.


title: References for a preliminary ruling from the ASVG-Landesberufungskommission für das Burgenland by decisions of that tribunal in the cases of Rouhollah Nour, Margarita Karner and Arthur Lindau v. Burgenländische Gebietskrankenkasse (Cases C-361/97, C-362/97 and C-363/97)

text:
C 278/10             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.9.98
by the Hellenic Republic (Agents: I. Chalkias and                  By orders of 25 May 1998, the Court (Second Chamber)
I.    Galani-Maragkoudaki)       and    by    Koinopraktiki        ordered:
Tyrokomikon Monadon Ioanninon Pindos AEBE, the seat
of which is at Ioannina (Greece), represented by N.
Korojiannakis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for              The Court has no jurisdiction to answer the questions
service in Luxembourg at the office of Brown Holding SA,           referred by the ASVG-Landesberufungskommission für
310 Route d'Esch, L-1471 Luxembourg Ð application for              das Burgenland.
annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of
12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical
indications and designations of origin under the procedure
laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2081/92 (OJ L 148, 21.6.1996, p. 1) in so far as it
concerns registration of the name feta' as a protected
designation of origin Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.
Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H.                                        ORDER OF THE COURT
Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),
Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de                                 (Third Chamber)
Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,                                 of 25 June 1998
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, L. Sevón and K. M.
Ioannou, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R.               in Case C-312/97 P: Augusto Fichtner v. Commission of
Grass, Registrar, made an order on 25 May 1998, the                                the European Communities (1)
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                   (Officials Ð Action manifestly inadmissible before the
                                                                   Court of First Instance Ð Appeal manifestly unfounded or
                                                                                inadmissible)
1. Case C-82/97 is referred to the Court of First Instance.
                                                                                (98/C 278/18)
2. The costs are reserved.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
( ) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
 1
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                            published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                   In Case C-312/97 P: Augusto Fichtner, an official of the
References for a preliminary ruling from the ASVG-Lan-             Commission of the European Communities, represented
desberufungskommission für das Burgenland by decisions             by Vincenzo Salvatore, of the Pavia Bar, with an address
of that tribunal in the cases of Rouhollah Nour, Margarita         for service at 6 Via Orrigoni, Varese Ð appeal against the
Karner and Arthur Lindau v. Burgenländische Gebiets-               order of the Court of First Instance of the European
                        krankenkasse                               Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 1997 in Case
         (Cases C-361/97, C-362/97 and C-363/97)                   T-63/96 Fichtner v. Commission [1997] ECR-SC II-563,
                                                                   seeking to have that order set aside, the other party to the
                        (98/C 278/17)                              proceedings being the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia, assisted by
                                                                   Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð the Court (Third Chamber),
               (Language of the case: German)                      composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C.
                                                                   Moitinho de Almeida and J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
                                                                   Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
                                                                   made an order on 25 June 1998, the operative part of
Reference was made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   which is as follows:
European Communities on 21 October 1997 by three
decisions of the ASVG-Landesberufungskommission für
das Burgenland (Social Security Appeals Board for
Burgenland), Austria, for preliminary rulings under                1. The appeal is dismissed.
Article 177 of the EC Treaty in the proceedings pending
before that tribunal between Rouhollah Nour (Case
C-361/97), Margarita Karner (Case C-362/97) and Arthur             2. The appellant is ordered to pay the costs.
Lindau (Case C-363/97) and Burgenländische Gebietskran-
kenkasse, concerning essentially the method of calculating
the remuneration of the President of the Landesberufungs-          (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
kommission and the relationship between the Paritätische
Schiedskommission as first-instance institution and the
Landesberufungskommission as appellate body.


title: Case C-484/16: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Taranto — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Antonio Semeraro (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Manifest lack of jurisdiction — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2012/29/EU — Article 2(1)(a) — Minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 49, 51, 53 and 54 — Offence of defamation — Repeal by the national legislature of the offence of defamation — Lack of connection to EU law — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/4

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Taranto — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Antonio Semeraro
   (Case C-484/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Manifest lack of jurisdiction - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2012/29/EU - Article 2(1)(a) - Minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 49, 51, 53 and 54 - Offence of defamation - Repeal by the national legislature of the offence of defamation - Lack of connection to EU law - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   (2017/C 086/05)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Giudice di Pace di Taranto

      Criminal proceedings against

   Antonio Semeraro

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Taranto (Justice of the Peace, Taranto, Italy), made by decision of 2 September 2016.

      (1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.


title: Case F-137/06: Action brought on 27 November 2006 — Chassagne v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/39

         Action brought on 27 November 2006 — Chassagne v Commission
   (Case F-137/06)
   (2007/C 20/59)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Olivier Chassagne (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority refusing to take an express decision concerning the fixing of the date of the first taking up of post for the applicant, so far as that refusal follows implicitly from the decision of the Appointing Authority of 14 January 2006;

               —

               annul, so far as is necessary, the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting the applicant's complaint;

               —

               state to the Appointing Authority the consequences of the annulment of the contested decisions, and, in particular, that it should take an express decision by which it recognises that the date of 1 July 2002 amounts to a first taking up of post within the meaning of Article 12(d) of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities (‘PPI’);

               —

               order the Appointing Authority to pay to the applicant: (i) the sum of EUR 9 523,26 by way of compensation for his material loss, plus default interest at the statutory rate from the date on which it becomes due; (ii) the sum of EUR 5 000, by way of compensation for his non-material loss, plus default interest at the statutory rate from the date on which it becomes due;

               —

               reserve judgment concerning that part of the material loss which still cannot be liquidated and which is represented by the costs that the applicant has incurred since 18 April 2006 and continues to incur in the framework of the dispute between him and the Belgian tax authorities before Belgian national courts concerning the fixing of the date of his first taking up of post;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his claim, the applicant relies on the following grounds:

               —

               infringement of Article 18 of the PPI;

               —

               infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of sound administration and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials;

               —

               infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the existence of a manifest error of assessment.


title: Case C-243/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 30 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 27 April 2016 — Antonio Miravitlles Ciurana, Alberto Marina Lorente, Jorge Benito García and Juan Gregorio Benito García v Contimark S.A. and Jordi Socías Gispert

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 30 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 27 April 2016 — Antonio Miravitlles Ciurana, Alberto Marina Lorente, Jorge Benito García and Juan Gregorio Benito García v Contimark S.A. and Jordi Socías Gispert
   (Case C-243/16)
   (2016/C 279/17)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 30 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Antonio Miravitlles Ciurana, Alberto Marina Lorente, Jorge Benito García and Juan Gregorio Benito García

      Defendants: Contimark S.A. and Jordi Socías Gispert

      Questions referred

               1.

               Under Directives 2009/101/EC (1) and 2012/30/EU (2) and their transposing provisions in Articles 236, 237, 238, 241 and 367, inter alia, of the Law on Capital Companies (Ley de Sociedades de Capital), does a creditor of a company who pursues his employment-related claim before the competent Spanish courts — the social courts — have the right to bring simultaneously before the same court a direct action against the company for the establishment of employment-related debts and, cumulatively, an action against a natural person — the company director —, as a person with joint and several liability for the company’s debts, on the ground of non-fulfilment of the company obligations laid down in those directives and transposed in the Spanish Law on Capital Companies?

               2.

               Is it possible that the case-law of the Sala de lo Social (Social Division) of the Spanish Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court), as expressed in the judgments of 28 February 1997 (RJ 1997\4220), 28 October 1997 (RJ 1997\7680), 31 December 1997 (RJ 1997\9644), 13 April 1998 (RJ 1998\4577), 17 January 2000 (RJ 2000\918), 9 June 2000 (RJ 2000\5109), 8 May 2002 and 20 December 2012 (summarised in the present order in the second point of the section dealing with applicable national case-law), might infringe Articles 2, 6, 7 and 8 of Directive 2009/101/EC and Articles 19 and 36 of Directive 2012/30/EU, in holding that Spanish social courts may not apply directly in relation to employment-related claims the safeguards, provided for in those directives and transposed into Spanish law in Articles 236, 237, 238, 241, 367 and others of the Law on Capital Companies, for creditors of companies when those ultimately in charge of such companies — natural persons — fail to comply with the formal requirements regarding disclosure of basic documents of the company laid down in Directive 2009/101 and Directive 2012/30 and transposed in the Spanish Law on Capital Companies?

               3.

               Is it possible that the case-law of the Sala de lo Social (Social Division) of the Spanish Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court), as expressed in the judgments of 28 February 1997 (RJ 1997\4220), 28 October 1997 (RJ 1997\7680), 31 December 1997 (RJ 1997\9644), 13 April 1998 (RJ 1998\4577), 17 January 2000 (RJ 2000\918), 9 June 2000 (RJ 2000\5109), 8 May 2002 and 20 December 2012 (summarised in the present order in the second point of the section dealing with applicable national case-law), might be contrary to Articles 20 and 21, in conjunction with Article 51, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in requiring an employment-related creditor — an employee — to bring two sets of legal proceedings, the first before the social courts for establishment of the claim against the employer and the second before the civil/commercial courts to obtain the joint and several guarantee of the company director or other natural persons, when that requirement is not laid down for any other type of creditor — regardless of the nature of his claim — in Directive 2009/101/EC, Directive 2012/30/EU or any of the domestic legal provisions (Law on Capital Companies) transposing those Community provisions into Spanish law?

      (1)  Directive 2009/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and third parties, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 48 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2009 L 258, p. 11).

      (2)  Directive 2012/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2012 L 315, p. 74).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 October 2004 in Case C-263/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Parallel imports — Imports of medicinal products from other Member States which are the same as medicinal products which have already been authorised — Marketing authorisation — Lack of regulatory framework)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/21

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 12 October 2004
   in Case C-263/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Parallel imports - Imports of medicinal products from other Member States which are the same as medicinal products which have already been authorised - Marketing authorisation - Lack of regulatory framework)
   (2004/C 300/42)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-263/03: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 17 June 2003, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: B. Stromsky) against French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and R. Loosli-Surrans) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 October 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               By failing to lay down specific rules relating to the authorisation of imports of medicinal products from other Member States of the European Community when those products are the same as medicinal products which have already been authorised in France (parallel imports), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

               2.

               The French Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200 of 23.8.2003.


title: Case C-171/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv) v M.S. Demirci and Others (Request for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Social security for migrant workers — Waiver of residence clauses — Supplementary benefits granted under national legislation — Residence requirement — Application to Turkish former workers — Turkish nationals having acquired the nationality of the host Member State)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/4

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv) v M.S. Demirci and Others
      (Case C-171/13) (1)

      (Request for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Social security for migrant workers - Waiver of residence clauses - Supplementary benefits granted under national legislation - Residence requirement - Application to Turkish former workers - Turkish nationals having acquired the nationality of the host Member State)
      (2015/C 073/04)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Centrale Raad van Beroep

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv)

         Defendants: M.S. Demirci, D. Cetin, A.I. Önder, R. Keskin, M. Tüle, A. Taskin

         Operative part of the judgment

      The provisions of Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families, viewed also in the light of Article 59 of the Additional Protocol signed on 23 November 1970 in Brussels and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, must be interpreted as meaning that nationals of a Member State who have been duly registered as belonging to the labour force of that Member State as Turkish workers cannot, on the ground that they have retained Turkish nationality, rely on Article 6 of Decision No 3/80 to object to a residence requirement provided for by the legislation of that Member State in order to receive a special non-contributory benefit within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 April 2005.

         (1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.


title: Case T-185/08 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2008 — VDH Projektentwicklung and Edeka Rhein-Ruhr v Commission (Interim measures — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/54

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2008 — VDH Projektentwicklung and Edeka Rhein-Ruhr v Commission
   (Case T-185/08 R)
   (Interim measures - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 209/97)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: VDH Projektentwicklung GmbH (Erkelenz, Germany) and Edeka Handelsgesellschaft Rhein-Ruhr mbH (Moers, Germany) (represented by: C. Antweiler, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Sauer, D. Kukovec and O. Weber, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for interim measures under Article 243 EC in relation to an action for failure to act against the Commission.
   Operative part of the order
   The President of the Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application for interim measures as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the applicants to bear their own costs.


title: Case T-135/99: Action brought on 1 June 1999 by Taurus-Film GmbH & Co. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
28.8.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 246/37
Action brought on 2 June 1999 by Anna Posnanteck née                      The applicant also considers that she is entitled to an orphan’s
  Skrzypek v Commission of the European Communities                       pension and alleges infringement of the third paragraph of
                                                                          Article 80 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 21 of Annex
                                                                          VII thereto. The applicant refers to the separate legal status of
                         (Case T-134/99)                                  the dependent child allowance and the orphan’s pension, the
                                                                          former being a supplementary allowance in the nature of
                         (1999/C 246/74)                                  remuneration and the latter a contributory benefit linked with
                                                                          the pension scheme allowing people not in receipt of the
                                                                          dependent child allowance at the time of the official’s death to
                                                                          obtain an orphan’s pension.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          As regards a widow’s right to receive a dependent child
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 allowance, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 81 of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 2 June             the Staff Regulations.
1999 by Anna Posnanteck née Skrzypek, a widow, residing in
Brussels, represented by Eric Causin and Isabel Jiménez Rojas,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the chambers of Daniel Phong, 222A Avenue Gaston
Diderich.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:             Action brought on 1 June 1999 by Taurus-Film GmbH &
                                                                          Co. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
— annul the decision of 9 March 1999 refusing to grant
     family allowances and an orphan’s pension with retroactive
     effect for the applicant herself and for her child Mira                                        (Case T-135/99)
     Posnanteck;
                                                                                (1999/C 246/75)
— declare, inter alia, that her child Mira is entitled to an
     orphan’s pension with effect from July 1998, together
     with default interest;                                                                   (Language of the case: German)
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                          Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1
                                                                          June 1999 by Taurus-Film GmbH & Co., whose registered
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                    office is in Unterföhring (Germany), represented by Büsing,
                                                                          Muffelmann & Theye, Rechtsanwälte, Bremen, with an address
                                                                          for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and
The applicant, the widow of a former official, contests the               Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
appointing authority’s refusal to grant her and her child family
allowances and an orphan’s pension. That decision is based on
Articles 67, 80 and 81 of the Staff Regulations, all of which             The applicant claims that the Court should:
include as a basic precondition for entitlement to orphan’s
benefits the existence of a child recognised as being dependent           1. Set aside the defendant’s decision of 19 March 1999 and
on the official, a condition not fulfilled in the present case.               order the defendant:
                                                                              (a) to permit registration of Community trade mark
In support of her claims, the applicant alleges, first, infringe-                  application No 404053 in respect of all provisions of
ment of Article 67 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 1                      services of Classes 38, 41 and 42 for which registration
and 2(2) and (3) of Annex VII thereto. As regards the                              is still refused (as shown in the index in Annex K 2);
household allowance, she contends that Article 1(1)(a) of                          and
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations imposes no requirement
that a married official should live under the same roof as his                (b) refund the appeal fee to the applicant.
spouse, so that the applicant’s spouse was entitled to receive
the household allowance both during his employment and                    2. Order the defendant to pay the costs of the current dispute
when he received an invalidity pension. Since the latter was                  and the necessary expenses of the applicant for the
not paid to him in his lifetime, the appointing authority should              procedure before the Board of Appeal.
have decided to pay his entitlement to his beneficiaries. As
regards the dependent child allowance, the applicant claims
that it is contrary to the Staff Regulations for the appointing           Pleas in law and main arguments
authority to impose as a precondition for recognition of her
daughter as a dependent child of the official the requirement             Trade mark:                     Word ‘Cine Action’ — Appli-
that proof be produced that he actually maintained her. In her                                            cation No 404053
view, that provision leaves no margin of latitude: the legislature
wished that entitlement to be granted as of right, that is to say         Goods or services:              ‘Parts of the services in Classes 38,
automatically, when there are minor children.                                                             41, 42’
 ---pagebreak--- C 246/38                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.8.1999
Decision           contested    Refusal of registration by the             Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of             examiner                                   before the Board of           examiner
Appeal:                                                                    Appeal:
Grounds for action:             — Infringement          of    Article      Grounds for action:           — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                    7(1)(b)of Regulation (EC) No                                             of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                    40/94                                                                — Misapplication of Article
                                — Misapplication of Article                                                  7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No
                                    7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No                                            40/94.
                                    40/94.
Action brought on 1 June 1999 by Taurus-Film GmbH &                        Action brought on 3 June 1999 by Natalia Martinez
Co. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                   Paramo and Others against the Commission of the Euro-
               Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                  pean Communities
                          (Case T-136/99)                                                          (Case T-137/99)
                          (1999/C 246/76)                                                          (1999/C 246/77)
                    (Language of the case: German)                                            (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1                   ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
June 1999 by Taurus-Film GmbH & Co., whose registered                      European Communities on 3 June 1999 by Natalia Martinez
office is in Unterföhring (Germany), represented by Büsing,                Paramo and 33 Others, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
Muffelmann & Theye, Rechtsanwälte, Bremen, with an address                 Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and                    Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
                                                                           The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           — annul the decision of Roger Fry, the head of unit DG IX,
1. Set aside the defendant’s decision of 19 March 1999 and                     sent to the applicants on 23 March 1999 and giving them
    order the defendant:                                                       notice of the termination of their contracts as of 30 June
                                                                               1999, and declare void the expiry date of 30 June 1999
    (a) to permit registration of Community trade mark                         fixed for each applicant’s contract;
         application No 400481 in respect of all provisions of
         services of Classes 38, 41 and 42 for which registration          — annul, in so far as is necessary, the legal characterisation of
         is still refused (as shown in the index in Annex K 2);                the applicants’ contracts, in that each applicant’s contract
         and                                                                   is in fact a renewal for an unlimited period of a contract
                                                                               awarded under Article 2(a) of the conditions of employ-
    (b) refund the appeal fee to the applicant.                                ment of other servants (hereinafter ‘the conditions’);
2. Order the defendant to pay the costs of the current dispute             — order the defendant to pay the costs.
    and the necessary expenses of the applicant for the
    procedure before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The applicants, who have already brought an action for the
Trade mark:                     Word ‘Cine Comedy’ — Appli-                annulment of the procedures and tests for the internal
                                cation No 404053                           competitions COM/T/A/2/98 and COM/T/B/2/98 (1), now chal-
                                                                           lenge the termination on 30 June 1999 of their contracts as
Goods or services:              ‘Parts of the services in Classes 38,      temporary staff, notified to them by letter of the head of unit
                                41, 42’                                    DG IX of 23 March 1999.


title: Case T-243/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Freddo v EUIPO — Freddo Freddo (Freggo) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the figurative EU trade mark ‘freggo’ — Earlier EU figurative trade mark ‘TENTAZIONE FREDDO FREDDO’ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Freddo v EUIPO — Freddo Freddo (Freggo)
   (Case T-243/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the figurative EU trade mark ‘freggo’ - Earlier EU figurative trade mark ‘TENTAZIONE FREDDO FREDDO’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 283/64)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Freddo SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, K. Gilbert and G. Lodge, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Freddo Freddo, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.F. Gallego Jiménez and C. Marí Aguilar, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 February 2016 (Case R 919/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Freddo Freddo SL and Freddo SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Freddo SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.


title: Case T-357/06: Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/24

         Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin v Commission
   (Case T-357/06)
   (2007/C 20/36)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Claimant: Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV (represented by: E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and Y. de Vries, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside, in relation to the claimant, the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006, notification of which Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin received on 25 November 2006, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL — C(2006) 4090 final);

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the decision in relation to the claimant, or in any event reduce substantially the fine imposed on the claimant by Article 2 of the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The claimant is challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), by which a fine was imposed on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.
   In support of its action, the claimant alleges, in the first place, that there was an incorrect analysis of the facts, resulting in a defective appraisal of the conduct of the road construction companies in the light of Article 81 EC. According to the claimant, the suppliers of bitumen were involved in a classic and extremely serious breach of the European competition rules. It states that the five leading customers for bitumen for road construction attempted to establish a counter-balance to this cartel with the primary objective of securing for themselves collective rebates that were as favourable as possible.
   The claimant also invokes a breach of Article 81 EC and of Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 in regard to the determination of the level of the fine imposed. According to the claimant, the basic amount of the fine was too high and the increases imposed for non-cooperation and its ostensible role as instigator and cartel leader were unjustified.
   In conclusion, the claimant submits that the Commission refused to allow it access to the reactions to the heads of complaint of all the other parties to which those heads of complaint were addressed. In the claimant's view, that course of conduct is contrary to the rights of the defence.


title: Joined Cases C-104/11 P and C-105/11 P: Order of the President of the Court of 20 March 2012 — Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep, formerly Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS) v European Commission

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/12

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 March 2012 — Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep, formerly Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS) v European Commission
   (Joined Cases C-104/11 P and C-105/11 P) (1)

   2012/C 235/24
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Court has ordered that the cases be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case T-138/17: Action brought on 28 February 2017 — Prim v EUIPO — Primed Halberstadt Medizintechnik (PRIMED)

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/29

         Action brought on 28 February 2017 — Prim v EUIPO — Primed Halberstadt Medizintechnik (PRIMED)
   (Case T-138/17)
   (2017/C 129/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Prim, SA (Móstoles, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Primed Halberstadt Medizintechnik GmbH (Halberstadt, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘PRIMED’ No 5 154 182

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2016 in Joined Cases R 2494/2015-4 and R 163/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.