title: Case C-621/13 P: Order of the Court of 11 February 2015 — Orange v European Commission, French Republic, Département des Hauts-de-Seine, Sequalum SAS (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — Compensation for public service costs relating to the establishment and operation of a very-high-speed broadband electronic communications network)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/8

         Order of the Court of 11 February 2015 — Orange v European Commission, French Republic, Département des Hauts-de-Seine, Sequalum SAS
   (Case C-621/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Compensation for public service costs relating to the establishment and operation of a very-high-speed broadband electronic communications network))
   (2015/C 146/12)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Orange S.A. (represented by: D. Gillet and H. Viane, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromssky and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents), French Republic (represented by: J. Bousin and M.D. Colas, Agents), Departement des Hauts-de-Seine (represented by: G. O’Mahony, avocat), Sequalum SAS (represented by: L. Feldman, avocat)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Orange S.A. is ordered to pay the costs of the European Commission, French Republic, Département des Hauts-de-Seine, Sequalum SAS.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.


title: Case C-157/11: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli — Italy) — Giuseppe Sibilio v Comune di Afragola (Social policy — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Directive 1999/70/EC — Clause 2 — Concept of ‘an employment contract or relationship defined by law, collective agreements or practice in force in each Member State’ — Scope of the framework agreement — Clause 4, point 1 — Principle of non-discrimination — Persons carrying out ‘work of social utility’ with public authorities — National rule excluding the existence of an employment relationship — National rule establishing a difference between the benefit paid to socially useful workers and the remuneration received by workers engaged under a contract of definite and/or indefinite duration by the same public authorities and carrying out the same activities)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/10

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli — Italy) — Giuseppe Sibilio v Comune di Afragola
   (Case C-157/11) (1)

   (Social policy - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Directive 1999/70/EC - Clause 2 - Concept of ‘an employment contract or relationship defined by law, collective agreements or practice in force in each Member State’ - Scope of the framework agreement - Clause 4, point 1 - Principle of non-discrimination - Persons carrying out ‘work of social utility’ with public authorities - National rule excluding the existence of an employment relationship - National rule establishing a difference between the benefit paid to socially useful workers and the remuneration received by workers engaged under a contract of definite and/or indefinite duration by the same public authorities and carrying out the same activities)
   2012/C 133/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Napoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Giuseppe Sibilio

      Defendant: Comune di Afragola

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Napoli — Interpretation of Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Principle of non discrimination — Unemployed persons registered on mobility lists or as job seekers engaged by public authorities for a fixed term carrying out work of social utility/work of public utility (known as socially useful workers/publicly useful workers) — National legislation establishing a difference in treatment in terms of pay between socially useful workers/publicly useful workers and workers engaged under a contract of indefinite duration by the same public authorities performing the same duties.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Clause 2 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the relationship between socially useful workers and the public authorities for whom they carry out their activities does not fall within the scope of that framework agreement where, and which is for the national court to determine, those workers are not covered by an employment relationship as defined by national law, collective agreements or practice in force, or the Member States and/or social partners have exercised the option granted to them under point 2 of that clause

      (1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.


title: Case T-672/15: Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Malta Cross Foundation International v OHIM — Malteser Hilfsdienst (Malta Cross International Foundation)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/73

         Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Malta Cross Foundation International v OHIM — Malteser Hilfsdienst (Malta Cross International Foundation)
   (Case T-672/15)
   (2016/C 027/92)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Malta Cross Foundation International, Inc. (Hallandale Beach, United States) (represented by: J. Pimenta, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Malteser Hilfsdienst e.V. (Cologne, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Malta Cross International Foundation’ — Application for registration No 7 252 554

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2015 in Case R 863/2011-G

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM and, if the case might be, the intervener to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings and of the appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

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


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 11 March 1997 in the case of Wingas GmbH (formerly Wintershall Gas GmbH) against Stadt Detmold (Case C-187/97)

text:
12 . 7. 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 212/17
The applicant claims that the Court should :                               users in its area, if the purpose is to protect the supply
                                                                           undertaking which it owns itself from competition in
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                  its area arising from use of the transit main ?
      period the measures necessary to comply with
      Commission Directive 93/71 /EEC ( ] ), the Federal               3 . If Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative:
      Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the EC Treaty and under that Directive, and                    Is a local authority or a legally independent supply
                                                                           undertaking owned by it ( with which the local
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                   authority has concluded an exclusive agreement for
                                                                           the use of its roads ) to be regarded, in relation to the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        local distribution of natural gas to end-users , as
                                                                           entrusted with the operation of a service of general
                                                                           economic interest within the meaning of Article 90 ( 2 )
The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 189                    of the EC Treaty, where such distribution is not a task
and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty                       assigned by the State — and is equally open to purely
requires the Member States to transpose the provisions of                   private undertakings — where the local authority may
a Directive into internal law so that they produce their full
                                                                            nevertheless carry out the task as a local community
effect by the expiry of the period prescribed for that                      matter and where, in providing such supplies, that
purpose . That period came to an end on 3 August 1994                       local authority ( or its supply undertaking ) is — like
without Germany having enacted the necessary provisions .                   private undertakings — subject to State supervision
                                                                            and under a general obligation to provide connections
(') OJ No L 221 , 31 . 8 . 1993 , p. 27 .                                   and to supply gas ?
                                                                       4 . If Questions 1 , 2 and 3 are answered in the
                                                                            affirmative :
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the                                   When examining whether, pursuant to Article 90 ( 2 )
Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 11 March                        of the EC Treaty, agreements of the kind described are
1997 in the case of Wingas GmbH ( formerly Wintershall                      not subject to Article 85 thereof, is account to be
               Gas GmbH) against Stadt Detmold                              taken only of factors relating to ensuring a reliable
                                                                            and reasonably-priced local supply of natural gas, or
                           Case C-187/97 )                                  are factors relating to other matters in the public
                            ( 97/C 212/30 )                                 interest ( in particular environmental protection ) also
                                                                            to be taken into account ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 5 . If Questions 1 , 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative
European Communities by order of the Kartellsenat                           and if, pursuant to the first sentence of Article 90 ( 2 )
 ( Cartel Chamber ) of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court                 of the EC Treaty, the Treaty rules on competition are
 of Justice ) of 11 March 1997, received at the Court                       not to be applied:
 Registry on 15 May 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the
 case of Wingas GmbH ( formerly Wintershall Gas GmbH )
 against Stadt Detmold on the following questions:                           Are agreements of the kind described in Questions 1
                                                                             and 2 between local authorities and natural gas supply
                                                                             undertakings, eliminating competition in the local
 1 . Does Article 85 of the EC Treaty render invalid an                      supply of natural gas, to be deemed to affect the
       agreement under which a local authority grants a                      development of trade to an extent contrary to the
       supply undertaking, which is legally independent but                  interest of the Community ?
       owned by it, the exclusive right to use its public roads
       to lay and maintain mains for the direct supply of
       natural gas to end-users and thereby de facto
       eliminates competition in supply within its area, where
       that agreement is one of a number of similar
       (concession ) agreements which — also in conjunction
       with demarcation agreements between supply                       Appeal brought on 15 May 1997 by L. B. Rasmussen
       undertakings — partition off entire national supply              against the judgment delivered on 18 March 1997 by the
       markets from competition within the gas sector by                Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
       domestic or Community competitors ?                              European Communities in Case T-35/96 between L. B.
                                                                        Rasmussen and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
  2 . In the circumstances set out in Question 1 , does
       Article 85 of the EC Treaty render invalid an                                           ( Case C-188/97 P)
       agreement concluded by a local authority with a                                            ( 97/C 212/31 )
       supply undertaking concerning the laying of a natural
       gas transit main through its municipal area, under
       which it obliges that supply undertaking not to use              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 March
        that main for the direct supply of natural gas to end           1997 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance


title: Case F-82/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 September 2011 — Dittert v Commission (Staff Cases — Officials — Promotion — 2006 promotion year — New career structures — Extension of careers by the introduction of new grades having no equivalent in the old Staff Regulations — Application of Article 45 and Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations, as well as the general implementing provisions applicable from 2005 — Principle of equal treatment — Retroactive effect of promotion decisions to a date prior to 1 May 2004 — Transitional measures — Action which must manifestly be dismissed)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/40

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 September 2011 — Dittert v Commission
   (Case F-82/07) (1)

   (Staff Cases - Officials - Promotion - 2006 promotion year - New career structures - Extension of careers by the introduction of new grades having no equivalent in the old Staff Regulations - Application of Article 45 and Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations, as well as the general implementing provisions applicable from 2005 - Principle of equal treatment - Retroactive effect of promotion decisions to a date prior to 1 May 2004 - Transitional measures - Action which must manifestly be dismissed)
   2011/C 340/81
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Daniel Dittert (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and K. Herrmann, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, later by: M. Bauer, J. Monteiro and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 23 April 2007 to promote the applicant to grade AD 9 and not AD 10.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Dittert and the European Commission are ordered to bear their own costs.

               3.

               The Council of the European Union, which intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235 of 6.10.07, p. 32.


title: Case C-82/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 17 February 2014 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Nuova Invincibile

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 17 February 2014 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Nuova Invincibile
   (Case C-82/14)
   2014/C 142/25
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte Suprema di Cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agenzia delle Entrate

      Defendant: Nuova Invincibile

      Question referred

   [Is a measure such as the tax amnesty provided for in Article 9(17) of Law No 289/2002, which relates to periods in the distant past and is intended to provide some degree of compensation to persons affected by natural disasters], in so far as it has an effect on the total amounts received (or receivable) after the application of VAT, caught by the prohibition underlying the judgment of Court of Justice of the European Union of 17 July 2008 in Case C-132/06?


title: Case T-204/08: Action brought on 4 June 2008 — Team Relocations NV v Commission

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/28

         Action brought on 4 June 2008 — Team Relocations NV v Commission
   (Case T-204/08)
   (2008/C 197/50)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Team Relocations NV (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams, J. Bocken, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 11 March 2008 in Case COMP/38.543 — International removal services, insofar as it declares that the applicant infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53(1) EEA in the period January 1997 — September 2003 by directly and indirectly fixing prices for International Removal Services in Belgium, sharing part of the market and manipulating the procedure of submission of tenders;

               —

               annul Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 11 March 2008 in Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services, in so far as it imposes on the applicant a fine of EUR 3,49 million;

               —

               in the alternative, substantially reduce the fine imposed by the aforementioned decision;

               —

               in any event, order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the Commission.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision C(2008)926 final of 11 March 2008 (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services) relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) EEA in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicant.
   The applicant puts forward eight pleas in law in support of its claims:
   First, the applicant claims that the Commission violated Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA as well as the duty to state reasons by asserting in Article 1 of its decision that the applicant participated from January 1997 to September 2003 in a single, continuous infringement of Article 81 EC.
   Second, the applicant submits that the Commission violated the principle of equal treatment as well as the 2006 Fining Guidelines (1) by taking into account, for purposes of calculating the basic amount of the fine, the applicant's aggregate sales on the Belgian market for international removals, including turnover derived from moves for private individuals.
   Third, the applicant contends that the percentage of 17 % of the value of sales applied by the Commission for the purposes of calculating the basic amount of the applicant's fine is excessively high. In doing so, the Commission allegedly violates the principles of equal treatment and proportionality, the 2006 Fining Guidelines and the duty to state reasons.
   Fourth, the applicant submits that there is no basis for multiplying the applicant's value of sales by the number of years during which the practices in which it engaged occurred. Further, it claims that the automatic multiplication of the amount determined on the basis of the value of sales by the number of years of an undertaking's participation in the infringement confers on the alleged duration of the infringement an importance disproportionate in relation to other factors and in particular to the gravity of the infringement.
   Fifth, the applicant advances that there is no basis for imposing on the applicant an additional amount of EUR 436 850,53, equal to 17 % of the value of its sales.
   Sixth, the applicant claims that the Commission should have taken into consideration several mitigating circumstances that warrant a substantial reduction of the applicant's fine.
   Seventh, the applicant argues that there was no basis for imposing a fine that exceeds 10 % of its turnover. In doing so, the Commission violated Article 23 of Regulation (EC) 1/2003 (2) and the principle of proportionality.
   Eighth and in the alternative, the applicant submits that its fine should be substantially reduced in order to take into account its inability to pay.

      (1)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).

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


title: Case T-714/14: Action brought on 8 October 2014 — Bonney v OHIM — Bruno (ATHEIST)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/40

         Action brought on 8 October 2014 — Bonney v OHIM — Bruno (ATHEIST)
   (Case T-714/14)
   (2014/C 431/63)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: David Bonney (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vanessa Bruno (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ATHEIST’ — Application for registration No 1 0 0 34  874

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2014 in Case R 803/2013-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               reject the opposition insofar as it concerns goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-613/14: Judgment of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — Industrias Tomás Morcillo v EUIPO — Aucar Trailer (Polycart A Whole Cart Full of Benefits) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union figurative mark Polycart A Whole Cart Full of Benefits — Earlier European Union figurative mark POLICAR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — Industrias Tomás Morcillo v EUIPO — Aucar Trailer (Polycart A Whole Cart Full of Benefits)
   (Case T-613/14) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union figurative mark Polycart A Whole Cart Full of Benefits - Earlier European Union figurative mark POLICAR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 191/31)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Industrias Tomás Morcillo, SL (Albuixech, Spain) (represented by: A. Sanz-Bermell y Martínez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO: Aucar Trailer, SL (Premia de Mar, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 7 May 2014 (Case R 1735/2012-1), elating to opposition proceedings between Aucar Trailer, SL and Industrias Tomás Morcillo, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Industrias Tomás Morcillo, SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.


title: Case C-348/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Turgay Semen v Deutsche Tamoil GmbH (Directive 86/653/EEC — Article 17 — Self-employed commercial agents — Termination of a contract — Right to an indemnity — Determining the amount of the indemnity)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Turgay Semen v Deutsche Tamoil GmbH
   (Case C-348/07) (1)

   (Directive 86/653/EEC - Article 17 - Self-employed commercial agents - Termination of a contract - Right to an indemnity - Determining the amount of the indemnity)
   2009/C 113/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Turgay Semen

      Defendant: Deutsche Tamoil GmbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 17(2)(a) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17) — Entitlement of commercial agent to an indemnity after termination of the agency contract — Determination of the amount of that indemnity in a situation in which the benefits which the principal continues to derive from business with customers which the commercial agent brought exceed the latter’s loss of commission

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 17(2)(a) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents is to be interpreted to the effect that it is not possible automatically to limit the indemnity to which a commercial agent is entitled by the amount of commission lost as a result of the termination of the agency contract, even though the benefits which the principal continues to derive have to be given a higher monetary value.

               2.

               Article 17(2)(a) of Directive 86/653 is to be interpreted to the effect that, where the principal belongs to a group of companies, benefits accruing to other companies of that group are not, in principle, deemed to be benefits accruing to the principal and, consequently, do not necessarily have to be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the amount of indemnity to which a commercial agent is entitled.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Case T-238/16: Action brought on 17 May 2016 – Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Scouring Environnement

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/44

         Action brought on 17 May 2016 – Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Scouring Environnement
   (Case T-238/16)
   (2016/C 260/55)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (CSJU) (represented by: B. Mastantuono, agent, assisted by M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Scouring Environnement SARL (Tauriac, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the defendant to pay the CSJU the amount of 60 000,00 euros in relation to the Grant Agreement No 287071 ‘BiMed – Bicarbonate media blasting for paint-varnish removal and dry surface treatment’, plus the amount of 3 600,00 euros as late payment interest calculated at a rate of 3,65 % for the period between 12 September 2014 and 3 May 2016; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law.
   The applicant contends that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations, by failing to submit the required reports, financial statements and deliverables of period 1, in accordance with Article 3 of the Grant Agreement, Article II.2(3) and Article II.4 Annex II to the Grant Agreement. Accordingly, the applicant terminated the Grant Agreement on the basis of Article II.38 Annex II to the Grant Agreement and issued debit note for the pre-financing of 60 000,00 euros that had already been paid to the coordinator in compliance with the provisions of the Grant Agreement. Consequently, the Applicant issued debit note for the recovery of the pre-financing, which remains the property of the applicant until final payment.
   The facts giving rise to Scouring Environnement SARL’s obligations, as coordinator, are widely undisputed in the present case, as no objection were raised by the defendant in relation to the circumstances of the termination and about the calculation of the amount to be re-paid to the applicant.
   Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to ask for the recovery and the reimbursement of the amount paid to the defendant as pre-financing, increased by default interest.


title: Case C-142/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 March 2012 — Hristomir Marinov v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — gr. Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 March 2012 — Hristomir Marinov v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — gr. Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite
   (Case C-142/12)
   2012/C 151/39
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hristomir Marinov

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — gr. Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 18(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that it also covers cases in which the cessation of the taxable economic activity is attributable to the fact that the taxable person is no longer able to charge or deduct VAT because he has been removed from the VAT register?

               2.

               Do Articles 74 and 80 of Directive 2006/112 preclude a national provision which states that, in the event of the cessation of the taxable economic activity, the taxable amount of the transaction is to be the open market value of the assets in existence at the time of removal from the register?

               3.

               Does Article 74 of Directive 2006/112 have direct effect?

               4.

               Are the length of the period from the purchase of the assets to the cessation of the taxable economic activity and the depreciations in value which have occurred since the assets were purchased significant for the purposes of determining the taxable amount in accordance with Article 74 of Directive 2006/112?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-222/11 P: Appeal brought on 13 May 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 9 March 2011 in Case T-190/09 Longevity Health Products, Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); other party: Performing Science LLC

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/12

         Appeal brought on 13 May 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 9 March 2011 in Case T-190/09 Longevity Health Products, Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); other party: Performing Science LLC
   (Case C-222/11 P)
   2011/C 252/24
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Longevity Health Products, Inc (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Performing Science LLC

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the appeal by the company Longevity Health Products, Inc admissible;

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2011 in Case T-190/09;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The restriction of the right to register a mark can be justified only in the public interest, for example in order to avoid a possible deception of certain trade circles. That can however be excluded in the present case because both experts and lay people are able to distinguish between the trade mark wording 5 HTP and the systematic designation for 5-hydroxy-tryptophan.
   Experts such as chemists and veterinary surgeons are aware that even minor changes in chemical nomenclature terms or chemical formulae could lead to significant differences in substance structure. That circle of persons would therefore without further consideration continue to use the correct chemical designation, which is not the same as the trade mark.
   ‘Informed persons’, that is lay people and consumers interested in the products concerned, are also aware that the designations of different substances drawn from chemical nomenclature may differ only slightly, but that a minimal name difference is in fact associated with massive differences in the pharmacological, chemical or physical characteristics of those substances.
   Lay persons who are not interested in the products concerned are in any case not able to recognise any connection between the trade mark name 5 HTP and the substance 5-hydroxy-tryptophan and therefore cannot also be misled thereby.


title: Action brought on 3 February 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-43/97)

text:
No C 94/ 12           ran                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 3 . 97
Action brought on 3 February 1997 by the Commission of                        Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1992
     the European Communities against the Italian Republic                    of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
                          (Case C-43/97)                                      Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and in
                                                                              respect of certain expenditure for 1993 (*) as regards
                            ( 97/C 94/23 )                                    consumption aid for olive oil, and
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                — order the Commission to pay the costs .
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
3 February 1997 by the Commission of the European                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service             — Infringement of the rules concerning the financing of
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                       the common agricultural policy and of the rules
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                     governing the common organization of the market in
                                                                              the oils and fats sector: the Kingdom of Spain states,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   with regard to each of the undertakings in respect of
                                                                              which the Commission proposes financial corrections,
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                    the reasons for which it considers that the Commission
       the laws, regulations or administrative provisions                     committed an error when assessing compliance with
       necessary to comply with Council Directive 93/36/EEC                   the Community rules by the undertakings concerned.
       of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the
       award of public supply contracts ( ! ), or in any event           — Breach of the principle of proportionality: in the case
       by failing to notify said provisions to the Commission,                of the two undertakings from which the EAGGF
       the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations              requires withdrawal of authorization for entitlement to
       under Article 34 ( 1 ) of that Directive;                             consumption aid, the amount cannot be regarded as
                                                                              significant, nor does there exist any intention to
2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                              defraud .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           Also the application of a correction of 100% of the
                                                                              aid in the case of four of the undertakings
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
                                                                              investigated, and of 10% in the case of the nine
Directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                              others, does not correspond to any established
upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
                                                                             criterion and is consequently out of all proportion to
Member States are required to observe the time limits laid
                                                                             the possible infringement committed.
down in directives for their transposition. That time limit
expired on 14 June 1994 without the Italian Republic
                                                                         (') OJ No L 323 , 13 . 12 . 1996 , p. 26 .
having brought into force the necessary provisions in
order to comply with the Directive referred to in the
Commission's application.
( 1 ) OJNoL 199, 9 . 8 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Richmond
                                                                         Magistrates Court by order of that court of 3 September
                                                                         1996 in the case of Vehicle Inspectorate against 1 . E.
                                                                             Clarke & Sons ( Coaches ) Limited and 2. D. J. Feme
Action brought on 4 February 1997 by the Kingdom                                                   ( Case C-47/97 )
of Spain against the Commission of the European                                                      ( 97/C 94/25 )
                            Communities
                          ( Case C-45/97)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                            ( 97/C 94/24 )                               European Communities by an order of the Richmond
                                                                         Magistrates Court, of 3 September 1996, which was
An action against the Commission of the European                         received at the Court Registry on 6 February 1997, for a
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                   preliminary ruling in the case of Vehicle Inspectorate
the European Communities on 4 February 1997 by the                       against 1 . E. Clarke & Sons ( Coaches ) Limited and 2 . D. J.
Kingdom of Spain, represented by Rosario Silva de La                    Feme, on the following questions:
puerta, Abogado del Estado and Head of the Legal
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                 1 . Are groups of passengers carried on a single journey
Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4—6 boulevard E.                           between an airport and a hotel via, on occasions, a
Servais .                                                                    tourist attraction 'specified categories of passengers'
                                                                              for the purposes of the application of Article 2 ( 1 ) ( 2 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   of Council Regulation 684/92/EEC H ?
— annul          Commission          Decision    96/701 /EC     of       2. If the answer to Question 1 is yes, is Article 2 ( 1 ) ( 2 )
       20 November 1996 amending Decision 96/311 /EC                         to be construed so that the carriage of such passengers
       on the clearance of the accounts presented by the                      on that journey where :


title: Case C-295/11: Action brought on 10 June 2011 — Italian Republic v Council of the European Union

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/21

         Action brought on 10 June 2011 — Italian Republic v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-295/11)
   2011/C 232/34
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and S. Fiorentino, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision of 10 March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (2011/167/EU) (1);

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the Italian Republic raises four pleas in law.
   First, it submits that the enhanced cooperation procedure was authorised by the Council outside the limits provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 20(1) TEU, according to which such a procedure is to be allowed only within the framework of the European Union’s non-exclusive competences. The European Union has an exclusive competence to create ‘European rules’ which have Article 118 TFEU as their legal basis.
   Second, it submits that the authorisation of enhanced cooperation in the present case is contrary to — or, in any event, not compatible with — the objectives in view of which such cooperation is provided for by the Treaties. In so far as that authorisation is contrary to, if not the letter, at least the spirit of Article 118 TFEU, it infringes Article 326(1) TFEU, in that the latter requires enhanced cooperation to comply with the Treaties and with EU law.
   Third, the Italian Republic submits that the authorisation decision was adopted without an appropriate inquiry with regard to the last resort requirement and without an adequate statement of reasons on that point.
   Lastly, according to the Italian Republic, the authorisation decision infringes Article 326 TFEU in that it adversely affects the internal market, introducing a barrier to trade between Member States and discrimination between undertakings, causing distortion of competition. Furthermore, it does not help to reinforce the EU’s integration process, and is thus contrary to the second subparagraph of Article 20(1) TEU.

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 76, p. 53.


title: Case F-56/09: Action brought on 4 June 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/48

         Action brought on 4 June 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-56/09)
   2009/C 205/90
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision to reject the applicant’s request seeking, first, compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the fact that Commission staff entered his official lodgings in Luanda on 8 April 2002 and, second, an order that copies of the photographs taken on that occasion be provided and that all documentation relating to that event be destroyed.

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul the decision rejecting the request of 24 April 2008;

               —

               in so far as necessary, declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul the note of 11 September 2008;

               —

               in so far as necessary, declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul the act rejecting the complaint of 3 November 2008;

               —

               confirm that, on 8 April 2002, Commission staff entered the applicant’s lodgings, took photographs and made a record of certain items, and confirm and declare that such acts are unlawful;

               —

               order the Commission to provide the applicant in writing with a list of each individual item of documentation that is relevant to the above acts;

               —

               order the Commission to arrange for the documentation, including the photographs, to be notified to the applicant in writing;

               —

               order the Commission to arrange for the physical destruction of the documentation and to notify the applicant of that destruction;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant by way of compensation for the damage thereby arising the sum of EUR 225 000 or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may consider fair and just, being: (a) EUR 100 000 for the damage arising as a result of the unlawful entering of his lodgings; (b) EUR 100 000 for the damage arising as a result of photographs being taken unlawfully; (c) EUR 25 000 for the damage arising as a result of the unlawful act of taking a record of certain items forming part of the applicant’s personal effects;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant, with effect from the date following that on which the request of 24 April 2008 was received by the Commission until actual payment of the sum of EUR 225 000, interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant by way of compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant resulting from the failure to provide the list of documentation, with effect from tomorrow until the day on which the list of documentation is provided to the applicant, the sum of EUR 100 per day, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may consider fair and just, to be paid on the first day of the month following delivery of judgment in this case as regards the sums already accrued in respect of the period between tomorrow and the last day of the month in which judgment is delivered in this case and on the first day of each month following that in which the judgment is delivered in respect of rights accrued during the previous month;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant, by way of compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant resulting from the failure physically to destroy the documentation, with effect from tomorrow until the day on which the documentation is physically destroyed, the sum of EUR 100 per day, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may consider fair and just, to be paid on the first day of the month following delivery of judgment in this case as regards the sums already accrued in respect of the period between tomorrow and the last day of the month in which judgment is delivered in this case and on the first day of each month following that in which the judgment is delivered in respect of rights accrued during the previous month;

               —

               order the Commission to repay to the applicant all costs, fees and other expenses incurred in the proceedings, including those relating to the preparation of an expert’s report;

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs relating to the preparation of the report of any expert it may instruct.


title: Case T-21/16: Order of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Karl Conzelmann v EUIPO (LIKE IT) (EU trade mark — Application for registration of the word mark LIKE IT — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/43

         Order of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Karl Conzelmann v EUIPO (LIKE IT)
   (Case T-21/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for registration of the word mark LIKE IT - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 144/59)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Karl Conzelmann GmbH + Co. KG (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Graul and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 November 2015 (Case R 223/2015-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign LIKE IT as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Karl Conzelmann GmbH + Co. KG shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.


title: Case C-303/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Land Baden-Württemberg v Metin Bozkurt (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Family reunification — Article 7, first paragraph, of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Spouse of a Turkish worker who has cohabited with her for more than five years — Continuing existence of the right of residence after divorce — Conviction of the person concerned for violence towards his ex-wife — Abuse of rights)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Land Baden-Württemberg v Metin Bozkurt
   (Case C-303/08) (1)

   (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Family reunification - Article 7, first paragraph, of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Spouse of a Turkish worker who has cohabited with her for more than five years - Continuing existence of the right of residence after divorce - Conviction of the person concerned for violence towards his ex-wife - Abuse of rights)
   2011/C 55/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Land Baden-Württemberg

      Defendant: Metin Bozkurt

      Intervener: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey — Right of residence acquired, as a family member, by a Turkish national as the spouse of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Retention of the right of residence in the case of divorce preceded by physical attacks on the ex-spouse which resulted in a criminal conviction

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council created by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, is to be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish national such as the applicant in the main proceedings, who, as a member of the family of a Turkish worker who is duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State and as a result of his residing with his spouse for a continuous period of at least five years, enjoys the rights relating to the legal status conferred on the basis of the second indent of that provision, does not lose those rights on account of his divorce, which took place after those rights were acquired.

               2.

               It is not an abuse of rights for a Turkish national such as the applicant in the main proceedings to rely on a right legally acquired pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 even though the person concerned, after acquiring that right through his former wife, committed a serious offence against her which gave rise to a criminal conviction.
               By contrast, Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 does not preclude a measure ordering the expulsion of a Turkish national who has been convicted of criminal offences, provided that his personal conduct constitutes a present, genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society. It is for the competent national court to assess whether that is the case in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Case C-90/08 P: Appeal brought on 28 February 2008 by K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2007 in Case T-86/05 K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/10

         Appeal brought on 28 February 2008 by K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2007 in Case T-86/05 K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

   (Case C-90/08 P)
   (2008/C 142/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant(s): K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG (represented by: D. Spohn, Rechtsanwältin)

      Other party/parties to the proceedings: 1. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), 2. Natália Cristina Lopes de Almeida Cunha, 3. Cláudia Couto Simões, 4. Marly Lima Jatobá
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the whole of paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 in Case T-86/05 and annulment of paragraph 2 of the operative part of that judgment so as to order OHIM to pay all its own costs and all the applicant's costs;

               —

               An order that OHIM pay the costs of proceedings.

         Upholding the claims made at first instance:

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 December 2004, R 0328/2004-1 in full;

               —

               An order that OHIM pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Court of First Instance dismissed the application of the appellant against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM on the ground that the Opposition Division of the Office correctly applied the second sentence of Rule 71(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 when it refused the appellant's application for an extension of the period specified for submission of proof of use of the earlier marks in the opposition proceedings, and that the Office had no discretion as regards the consideration of the evidence submitted late by the appellant in the present case.
   The appeal alleges the following breaches of Community law by the Court.

               (1)

               The Court of First Instance has infringed the second sentence of Rule 71(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 by misinterpreting that provision. In particular, the Court of First Instance failed to have regard for the fact that Regulation No 40/94 contains no rules on possible grounds for an extension of the period specified. It also failed to have regard for the fact that, at the material time, Rule 71(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 had not been further defined by guidelines for oppositions or other instructions from OHIM, so that no possible interpretations of the permissible grounds for extensions of the period were available. The Court therefore did not consider fully the facts of the case and/or misinterpreted the second sentence of Rule 71(1).

               (2)

               The Court of First Instance also disregarded the duty to state reasons incumbent on it, as it did not investigate the statement of the appellant that at the time of the application for an extension there were no legal rules and no basis for interpretation of the wording of requests for extensions. As reasons were attached to the request for an extension, the Court should also have explained the legal basis on which the reasons stated for the request for an extension are to be regarded as insufficient.

               (3)

               The Court of First Instance infringed Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94 by misinterpreting that provision as meaning that OHIM had no discretion to take account of evidence adduced late in the opposition proceedings. It failed to have regard to the fact that the Boards of Appeal have a general discretion which is not excluded by the provisions of Article 43 of Regulation No 40/94 and the second sentence of Rule 22(2) of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Case C-35/00: Action brought on 8 February 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
8.4.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 102/15
2. Dismiss the action for annulment of Regulation 1312/96              Pleas in law and main arguments
     lodged by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and
     C.H. Boehringer Sohn in T-152/96 as unfounded;
                                                                       The existing waste management plans currently notified to the
3. Order Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H.                  Commission under Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC do not
     Boehringer Sohn to pay the costs of this appeal;                  appear to cover the whole territory of the United Kingdom.
                                                                       From the information provided the Commission has had to
4. Order Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H.                  conclude that the United Kingdom has not notified sufficient
     Boehringer Sohn to bear the costs of the action for               waste plans to cover the whole territory of the United
     annulment in Case T-152/96.                                       Kingdom.
                                                                       As regards Directive 91/689/EEC, an examination of Annex I
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        of the Reasoned Opinion shows that 21 of the notified plans
                                                                       do not contain the requisite information relating to hazardous
The Commission submits that the Court of First Instance erred          waste. By virtue of Article 6 of this directive, the United
in law in finding that the Commission had exceeded its powers          Kingdom authorities are required to draw up plans for
by restricting the validity of the maximum residue limits              the management of hazardous waste. From the information
(MRLs) established in Regulation 1312/96.                              provided, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil this obli-
                                                                       gation.
The Commission also submits that the reasoning used to
support that conclusion is contradictory, incomplete and               Furthermore, as regards Directive 94/62/EC, only one plan
wrong.                                                                 appears to include a chapter on packaging waste. By virtue of
                                                                       Article 14 of this directive, the United Kingdom authorities are
                                                                       required to include a specific chapter on the management of
(1) OJ C 318 of 26.10.1996, p. 15.                                     packaging and packaging waste in an Article 7 waste plan.
(2) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996, p. 32.                                     From the information provided, the United Kingdom has failed
                                                                       to fulfil this obligation.
                                                                       (1) Of the Council of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975,
                                                                           p. 39).
                                                                       (2) Of the Council of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ
                                                                           L 377 of 31.12.1991, p. 20).
Action brought on 8 February 2000 by the Commission of                 (3) Of the European Parliament and Council of 20 December 1994
the European Communities against the United Kingdom                        on packaging and packaging waste (OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994,
                                                                           p. 10).
                         (Case C-35/00)
                        (2000/C 102/25)
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 February
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal                  Action brought on 14 February 2000 by the Commission
Adviser, and Ms Lena Ström, Legal Adviser, acting as agents,                   of the European Communities against Ireland
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Centre Wagner.
                                                                                (Case C-46/00)
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2000/C 102/26)
— declare that, by failing to draw up waste-management
     plans in conformity with all the requirements of Directives       An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
     75/442/EEC (1), 91/689/EEC (2) and 94/62/EC (3) concern-          Justice of the European Communities on 14 February 2000 by
     ing waste and/or inform the Commission thereof, the               the Commission of the European Communities, represented
     United Kingdom Government has failed to fulfil its obli-          by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, member
     gations under Articles 7, 6 and 14 respectively of these          of the Legal Service acting as agents, with an address for service
     Directives,                                                       at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of the
                                                                       Legal Service of the Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
— order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                           Luxembourg.


title: Case T-308/06: Action brought on 13 November 2006 — Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products v OHIM — Werner & Mertz (Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/63

         Action brought on 13 November 2006 — Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products v OHIM — Werner & Mertz (Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products)
   (Case T-308/06)
   (2006/C 326/135)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products, Inc. (Pleasanton, USA) (represented by: F. de Visscher, E. Cornu and D. Moreau, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Werner & Mertz GmbH (Mainz, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation of the Internal Market of 8 September 2006 in case R 1094/2005-2;

               —

               order the Office to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘BUFFALO MILKE Automotive Polishing Products’ for goods and services in classes 3, 18 and 25 — application No 2 099 018

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Werner & Mertz GmbH

      Mark or sign cited: The national figurative mark ‘BÚFALO’ for goods in class 3

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43 of Council Regulation No 40/94 and Rule 22 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 as the Board of Appeal should not have taken into consideration the proof of use filed for the first time before it and outside the time limit set forth by the Opposition Division.


title: Case T-27/11: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2011 — Rheinischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/21

         Order of the General Court of 15 December 2011 — Rheinischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission
   (Case T-27/11) (1)

   2012/C 39/42
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/1

         (2007/C 315/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 297, 8.12.2007

   Past publications

      OJ C 283, 24.11.2007

      OJ C 269, 10.11.2007

      OJ C 247, 20.10.2007

      OJ C 235, 6.10.2007

      OJ C 223, 22.9.2007

      OJ C 211, 8.9.2007

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-273/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 13 May 2016 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Federal Express Europe Inc.

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 13 May 2016 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Federal Express Europe Inc.
   (Case C-273/16)
   (2016/C 343/32)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law and cross-respondent on a point of law: Agenzia delle Entrate

      Respondent on a point of law and cross-appellant on a point of law: Federal Express Europe Inc.

      Question referred

   Can Articles 144 and 86(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (1) (corresponding to Article 14(1) and (2) and Article 11.B(3) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (2)), taken together, be interpreted to mean that the only condition in order for connected services consisting of the ‘inbound’ transport service — from airports to the place of destination within the territory of the Member State, with the ‘free-at-destination’ clause — not to be liable to VAT is that their value is included in the taxable amount, regardless of whether or not the goods in question were in fact subject to customs duties, at the time of their importation; and is it therefore incompatible with those EU-law provisions if the domestic rules laid down in Articles 9(1).2 and 69(1) of Presidential Decree No 33 of 26 October 1972, read together in the versions in force at the time of the material facts, provide that in every case, and therefore also in the case of imports that are not liable to VAT — as is the case here, since it concerns documents and goods of negligible value — there has to be compliance with the additional requirement that those imports must in fact be liable to VAT (and customs duty must in fact be paid) at the time of the importation of such goods, even, if need be, when account is taken of the ancillary nature of the transport services in relation to the main services (namely the importation) and of the rationale of simplification underlying both the main and the ancillary operations?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

      (2)  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 T-236/08: Action brought on 16 June 2008 — HPA v Commission

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/49

         Action brought on 16 June 2008 — HPA v Commission
   (Case T-236/08)
   (2008/C 223/87)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Hoofdproductschap Akkerbouw (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: R.J.M. van den Tweel)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare non-existent, or at least annul, Commission Decision C(2006)7093/6 of 19 December 2006 concerning the recovery of Claim No 3240206544 payable jointly and severally by the members of the European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG) Euroterroirs, within the framework of Project No 93.EU.06.002 concerning a study to compile an inventory on European heritage in respect of typical and regional agricultural and food products (certified local and regional products), at any rate in so far as the Hoofdproductschap Akkerbouw is thereby held to be jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the aforementioned claim;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant challenges the recovery of a claim from Euroterroirs established by Commission decision of 14 August 2000. According to the applicant, the contested decision must, at least to the extent to which the applicant is thereby declared to be jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the claim, be declared to be non-existent and void, in view of the fact that that decision is vitiated by particularly serious and manifest defects. The applicant further contends that a ruling can be given to the effect that the decision has given rise to no effects in law even after expiry of the period within which that decision ought to have been challenged.
   By its first plea, the applicant submits that there has been a breach of Regulation No 2137/85 (1) inasmuch as the applicant has never been a member of the European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG) Euroterroirs and for that reason cannot be liable.
   Second, the applicant alleges infringement of the rights of the defence. The Commission, it submits, failed to provide the applicant with an opportunity to set out its views before the Commission adopted the contested decision, and notified the applicant of the claim established by decision of 14 August 2000 only when it sent the contested decision to the applicant.
   Third, the applicant submits that the principle of proportionality has been infringed. The Commission, it claims, declared the applicant to be jointly and severally liable six years after the claim was established without first having itself taken appropriate measures against Euroterroirs, against the establishing member — and also the administrator — of Euroterroirs, namely the Conseil national des Arts Culinaires (CNAC) in France, or against the Member State France. In addition, the applicant submits, the Netherlands expert engaged for individual inventarising activities in 1994/1995 in the context of the Euroterroirs project received remuneration of merely EUR 13 055.
   In conclusion, the applicant submits that the claim is time-barred in view of the fact that the Commission sent the disputed debit note to Euroterroirs on 28 September 2000 without subsequently informing the applicant in good time of activities which might have suspended the limitation period.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/85 of 25 July 1985 on the European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG) (OJ 1985 L 199, p. 1).


title: Case C-27/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia — grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Anton Vinkov v Nachalnik Administrativno-nakazatelna deynost

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia — grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Anton Vinkov v Nachalnik Administrativno-nakazatelna deynost
   (Case C-27/11)
   2011/C 145/03
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia — grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Anton Vinkov

      Defendant: Nachalnik Administrativno-nakazatelna deynost

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must applicable provisions of national law, such as those in the main proceedings, which relate to the legal consequences of a decision issued by an administrative authority concerning the imposition of a financial penalty due to an administrative offence consisting in a traffic accident, be interpreted to the effect that they are compatible with the provisions provided for in the Treaties and the European Union law measures adopted on the basis of those provisions in the area of freedom, security and justice and/or if appropriate in the area of transport?

               2.

               Does it follow from the provisions of the Treaties and European Union law measures adopted on the basis of those provisions in the area of freedom, security and justice in connection with judicial cooperation in criminal matters under Article 82(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in the area of transport under Article 91(1)(c) of that Treaty that administrative road traffic offences which can be characterised as ‘minor’ for the purposes of and in connection with Article 2 of Protocol No 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are included in the scope of European Union law?

               3.

               If the second question is answered in the affirmative, the answers to the following questions are requested:

                           3.1.

                           Does an administrative road traffic offence in the circumstances of the main proceedings constitute a minor offence for the purposes of European Union law if at the same time the following circumstances exist:

                                       (a)

                                       The offence is a traffic accident which has caused financial loss, must be characterised as having been committed intentionally or negligently, and is punishable as an administrative offence.

                                       (b)

                                       In accordance with the amount of the financial penalty provided for, the decision about its imposition cannot be challenged in court and the person concerned does not have the opportunity to prove that the offence with which he has been charged was not committed intentionally or negligently.

                                       (c)

                                       The number of points stated in the decision is deducted as an automatic legal consequence of the decision becoming final.

                                       (d)

                                       In the context of the system of driving licences which has been introduced, in which when they are issued a certain number of points is allocated to take into account offences committed, the deduction of points is also taken into account as an automatic legal consequence on the basis of penalty orders which cannot be challenged.

                                       (e)

                                       If the withdrawal of the driving licence due to disqualification from driving, which occurs as an automatic legal consequence of the deduction of the number of points granted on issue of the licence, is challenged in court, there is no incidental judicial review of the legality of the penalty orders, by which points have been deducted and which are not subject to challenge.

                           3.2.

                           Do Article 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, if appropriate Article 91(1)(c) of that Treaty, and the measures adopted on the basis of the provisions mentioned and the Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, allow the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions or the measures to improve road safety to not be applied to a decision on the imposition of a financial penalty arising from a road traffic offence which is capable of being characterised as ‘minor’ in European Union law in the circumstances in the main proceedings because the Member State has provided that the requirements of being able to challenge a decision before a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters and the applicability of the procedural rules of national law on appeals in the event of being charged for committing a criminal offence are to be disregarded.

               4.

               If the second question is answered in the negative, the answers to the following questions are requested:
               Do Article 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, if appropriate Article 91(1)(c) of that Treaty, and the measures adopted on the basis of the provisions mentioned and the Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, allow the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions or the European Union law measures to improve road safety to not be applied to a decision on the imposition of a financial penalty arising from a road traffic offence according to the discretion of the Member State — the Member State having provided in a legislative act that the requirements of being able to challenge a decision before a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters and the applicability of the procedural rules of national law on appeals in the event of being charged for committing a criminal offence are be disregarded — where at the same time the following applies to the decision in the circumstances of the main proceedings:

                           (a)

                           The offence is a traffic accident which has caused financial loss, must be characterised as having been committed intentionally or negligently, and is punishable as an administrative offence.

                           (b)

                           In accordance with the amount of the financial penalty provided for, the decision about its imposition cannot be challenged in court and the person concerned does not have the opportunity to prove that the offence with which he has been charged was not committed intentionally or negligently.

                           (c)

                           The number of points stated in the decision is deducted as an automatic legal consequence of the decision becoming final.

                           (d)

                           In the context of the system of driving licences which has been introduced, in which when they are issued a certain number of points is allocated to take into account offences committed, the deduction of points is also taken into account as an automatic legal consequence on the basis of penalty orders which cannot be challenged.

                           (e)

                           If the withdrawal of the driving licence due to disqualification from driving, which occurs as an automatic legal consequence of the deduction of the number of points granted on issue of the licence is challenged in court, there is no incidental judicial review of the legality of the penalty orders, by which points have been deducted and which are not subject to challenge.


title: Case C-275/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 May 2016 — Comune di Balzola and Others v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 May 2016 — Comune di Balzola and Others v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni
   (Case C-275/16)
   (2016/C 314/13)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Comune di Balzola, Comune di Borgo San Martino, Comune di Camino, Comune di Cereseto, Comune di Cerrina, Comune di Frassineto Po, Comune di Gabiano, Comune di Limone Piemonte, Comune di Mombello Monferrato, Comune di Morano Sul Po, Comune di Odalengo Piccolo, Comune di Pietraporzio, Comune di Piovà Massaia, Comune di Pontestura, Comune di Ponzano, Comune di Sala Monferrato, Comune di Serralunga di Crea, Comune di Solonghello, Comune di Villamiroglio, Comune di Montemagno, Comune di Scurzolengo, Comune di Alfiano Natta, Comune di Moncalvo, Comune di Cerro Tanaro, Comune di Tonco, Comune di Castagnole Monferrato, Comune di Casorzo, Comune di Calliano, Comune di Robella, Comune di Grana, Comune di Rocchetta Tanaro, Comune di Odalengo Grande, Comune di Coniolo, Comune di Ozzano Monferrato, Comune di Demonte, Comune di Entracque, Comune di Sambuco, Comune di Roccasparvera, Comune di Argentera, Comune di Gaiola, Comune di Valdieri, Anci Piemonte

      Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

      Question referred

   On a correct interpretation of Directive 97/67/EC, (1) are Article 3(7) of Legislative Decree No 261/99 and Article 1(276) of Law No 194/2014 compatible with that directive, in the following respects:

               (a)

               Directive 97/67/EC, as amended and supplemented, concerning common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service imposes an obligation on Member States to provide a universal postal service and, in that connection, it provides that postal items must be collected and delivered to the home address of the addressee ‘not less than five working days a week’;

               (b)

               the same Community directive makes provision for possible derogations, by the national regulatory authorities, only ‘in circumstances or geographical conditions deemed exceptional’;

               (c)

               Italian domestic legislation (Article 3(7) of Legislative Decree No 261/99 and Article 1(276) of Law No 190/2014 — referred to as the ‘2015 Stability Law’), on the other hand, requires the national regulatory authority to allow the aforementioned derogation, within specified time limits, whenever the operator of the service so requests, relying on the ‘existence of particular situations of an infrastructural or geographical nature in territorial areas with a population density of less than 200 inhabitants per square kilometre’, even where such situations are not of an exceptional nature and affect a considerable proportion of the national population (up to one-quarter of the population and therefore — in the case of areas with low population densities — up to a far wider proportion of national territory)?

      (1)  Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14).


title: Joined Cases C-87/03 and C-100/03: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  30 March 2006  — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (Fisheries — Regulation distributing catch quotas among Member States — Act of accession of Spain — End of the transitional period — Requirement of relative stability — Principle of non-discrimination — New fishing opportunities)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 March 2006 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union
   (Joined Cases C-87/03 and C-100/03) (1)

   (Fisheries - Regulation distributing catch quotas among Member States - Act of accession of Spain - End of the transitional period - Requirement of relative stability - Principle of non-discrimination - New fishing opportunities)
   (2006/C 143/06)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Ramos Ruano and F. Florindo Gijón,Agents,)

      Interveners: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn, F. Jimeno Fernandez and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: D. Wyatt QC and K. Manji, Agent
   Re:
   Partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 of 20 December 2002 fixing for 2003 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (OJ 2002 L 356, p. 12), in so far as the new fishing opportunities, fixed from 1992 to 1998 for the North Sea and for the Baltic, are not allocated taking account of the interests of Spain, despite the fact that the transitional period has come to an end — Discrimination — Application of Art. 20(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy (OJ 2002 L 358, p. 59).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 07.06.2003.