title: Case T-1/08: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2011 — Buczek Autmotive v Commission (State aid — Restructuring of the Polish steel industry — Recovery of public debts — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Concept of State aid — Private investor criterion)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2011 — Buczek Autmotive v Commission
   (Case T-1/08) (1)

   (State aid - Restructuring of the Polish steel industry - Recovery of public debts - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Concept of State aid - Private investor criterion)
   2011/C 186/32
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Buczek Automotive sp. z o.o. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: initially T. Gackowski, then D. Szlachetko-Reiter and lastly J. Jurczyk, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially K. Gross, M. Kaduczak, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and K. Herrmann, then A. Stobiecka-Kuik, K. Herrmann and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland, (represented by: M. Niechciala, then M. Krasnodębska-Tomkiel and M. Rzotkiewicz, Agents)

      Re:

   Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/344/EC of 23 October 2007 on State Aid C 23/06 (ex NN 35/06) which Poland has implemented for steel producer Technologie Buczek Group (OJ 2008 L 116, p. 26).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 2008/344/EC of 23 October 2007 on State Aid C 23/06 (ex NN 35/06) which Poland has implemented for steel producer Technologie Buczek Group;

               2.

               Annuls Article 3(1) and (3) and Articles 4 and 5 of Decision 2008/344, in so far as they relate to Buczek Automotive sp. z o.o.;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Buczek Automotive, including those relating to the interim proceedings;

               4.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case C-618/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Banco Español de Crédito SA v Joaquín Calderón Camino (Directive 93/13/EEC — Consumer contracts — Unfair term concerning interest on late payments — Order for payment procedure — Powers of the national court)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Banco Español de Crédito SA v Joaquín Calderón Camino
   (Case C-618/10) (1)

   (Directive 93/13/EEC - Consumer contracts - Unfair term concerning interest on late payments - Order for payment procedure - Powers of the national court)
   2012/C 227/06
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banco Español de Crédito SA

      Defendant: Joaquín Calderón Camino

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Interpretation of Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29), of Art. 11(2) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22), of Arts 5, 6(2), 7 and 10 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66) and of Art. 2 of Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests (OJ 2009 L 110, p. 30) — Consumer credit — Interest rates applicable in the event of late payment — Unfair terms — Order for payment procedure — Powers of the national court

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not allow the court before which an application for an order for payment has been brought to assess of its own motion, in limine litis or at any other stage during the proceedings, even though it already has the legal and factual elements necessary for that task available to it, whether a term relating to interest on late payments contained in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, in the case where that consumer has not lodged an objection;

               2.

               Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as Article 83 of Royal Legislative Decree 1/2007 approving the consolidated version of the General Law for the protection of consumers and users and other supplementary laws (Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2007 por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley General para la Defensa de los Consumidores y Usuarios y otras leyes complementarias) of 16 November 2007, which allows a national court, in the case where it finds that an unfair term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is void, to modify that contract by revising the content of that term.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.


title: Case C-519/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 September 2016 — Trafilerie Meridionali SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Fines — Setting of the fines — 2006 Guidelines for the setting of fines — Point 35 — Unlimited jurisdiction — Obligation to state reasons — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy within a reasonable time)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/24

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 September 2016 — Trafilerie Meridionali SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-519/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Fines - Setting of the fines - 2006 Guidelines for the setting of fines - Point 35 - Unlimited jurisdiction - Obligation to state reasons - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy within a reasonable time))
   (2016/C 419/31)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Trafilerie Meridionali SpA (represented by: P. M. Ferrari and G. Lamicela, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Conte and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Trafilerie Meridionali SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.


               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/1

         (2007/C 235/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 223, 22.9.2007

   Past publications

      OJ C 211, 8.9.2007

      OJ C 183, 4.8.2007

      OJ C 170, 21.7.2007

      OJ C 155, 7.7.2007

      OJ C 140, 9.6.2007

      OJ C 129, 9.6.2007

   These texts are available on:

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


title: Case T-104/07: Action brought on 6 April 2007 — BVGD v Commission

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/18

         Action brought on 6 April 2007 — BVGD v Commission
   (Case T-104/07)
   (2007/C 129/32)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Belgische Vereniging van handelaars in- en uitvoerders geslepen diamant (Antwerpen, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision dated 26 January 2007 by which the European Commission rejected the complaint lodged by BVGD for the reason that there are insufficient grounds for acting on it (Case COMP/39.221/B-2-BVGD/De Beers);

               —

               order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the Commission's decision of 26 January 2007 in competition Case COMP/39.221/B-2 — BVGD/De Beers, by which the Commission rejected the applicant's complaint regarding violations of Articles 81 and 82 EC in connection with the Supplier of Choice system applied by the De Beers Group for the distribution of rough diamonds, with the reasoning that there is not sufficient Community interest to act further on the applicant's complaint.
   The applicant alleges that De Beers — a producer of rough diamonds who, according to the applicant, was mainly involved upstream with the sale of rough diamonds — is trying through its Supplier of Choice system to extend its control of the market to cover the entire diamond pipeline from mine to consumer, i.e. also the downstream markets.
   In support of its application, the applicant firstly claims a violation of its procedural rights as complainant. The applicant alleges i) that the Commission prevented it from exercising its right to have access under Article 8(1) of Regulation No 773/2004 (1) to the documents on which the Commission based its provisional assessment, ii) that the Commission put undue pressure on the applicant by its management of the time-limits in the case, iii) that the Commission created, in its correspondence with the applicant, confusion as to the stage of the procedure, and iv) that the Commission did not associate the applicant closely with the procedure.
   Secondly, the applicant submits that the Commission violated the notion of Community interest and committed manifest errors of appraisal, erred in law and violated its duty to state reasons.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).


title: Case C-71/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) (United Kingdom) made on 10 February 2014 — East Sussex County Council v The Information Commissioner, Property Search Group, Local Government Association

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) (United Kingdom) made on 10 February 2014 — East Sussex County Council v The Information Commissioner,
   Property Search Group,
   Local Government Association
   (Case C-71/14)
   2014/C 102/34
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: East Sussex County Council

      Defendants: The Information Commissioner, Property Search Group, Local Government Association

      Questions referred

               1.

               What is the meaning to be attributed to Art 5(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC (1) and in particular can a charge of a reasonable amount for supplying a particular type of environmental information include:

                           a)

                           Part of the cost of maintaining a database used by the public authority to answer requests for information of that type;

                           b)

                           Overhead costs attributable to staff time properly taken into account in fixing the charge?

               2.

               Is it consistent with Arts 5(2) and 6 of the Directive for a Member State to provide in its regulations that a public authority may charge an amount for supplying environmental information which does ‘… not exceed an amount which the public authority is satisfied is a reasonable amount’ if the decision of the public authority as to what is a ‘reasonable amount’ is subject to administrative and judicial review as provided under English law?

      (1)  Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC

      OJ L 41/26, p. 1


title: Removal from the register of C-175/95

text:
No C 199/ 18              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 6 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                 Removal from the register of C-282/94 ( ')
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/35 )
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of                       By order of 17 April 1997, the President of the Court of
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives                      removal from the register of Case C-282/94 : French
addressed to them into their domestic law before the
                                                                          Republic v. Commission of the European Communities .
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so and forthwith
to inform the Commission thereof. That period, which is
                                                                          (') OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
laid down in Article 21 of the Directive, expired without
the Portuguese Republic having brought into force the
necessary provisions.
H OJNoL20, 26 . 1 . 1980 , p . 43 .
                                                                                Removal from the register of C- 174/95 ( ] )
                                                                                97/C 199/36 )
                                                                          By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Action brought on 16 May 1997 by the Commission of                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                           from the register of Case C-l 74/95 ( Reference for a
                                   Belgium                                preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                          Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
                             ( Case C-190/97 )
                                                                          Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
                               ( 97/C 199/34 )                            against Siro Mattei .
                                                                          ( ] ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 16 May 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                                    Removal from the register of C-175/95 (')
Kirchberg.
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/37 )
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should :                                                    By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-175/95 ( Reference for a
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
       and administrative provisions necessary to comply                   Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
       with     Commission          Directives    93/72/EEC ( l ) . of     Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
       1 September 1993 and 93/101 /EC (2 ) of 11 November                 against Bruno Belli .
       1993 adapting to technical progress for the 19th and
       20th time respectively Council Directive 67/548/EEC                 H OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
       on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
       administrative provisions relating to the classification,
       packaging and labelling of dangerous substances ( 3 ),
       the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under those Directives, and
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-l 76/95 (')
 — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                                                       ( 97/C 199/38 )
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                           By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                  from the register of Case C-l 76/95 ( Reference for a
 put forward in Case C-l 86/97: the relevant time-limits                   preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
 expired on 1 July 1994 and 1 January 1995 respectively.                   Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
                                                                           Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
 (') OJ No L 258 , 16 . 10 . 1993 , p . 29 .                               against Armando Scrocca .
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 13 , 15 . 1 . 1994 , p . 1 .
 ( 3 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234 .                          (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .


title: Case T-386/13: Order of the General Court of 3 September 2014  — Kėdainių rajono Okainių and Others v Council and Commission (Action for annulment — Common Agricultural Policy — Direct support schemes for farmers — Authorisation for granting complementary national direct payments in Lithuania for 2012 — Time limit for bringing an action — Point from which time runs — Inadmissibility — Plea of illegality)

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/13

         Order of the General Court of 3 September 2014 — Kėdainių rajono Okainių and Others v Council and Commission
   (Case T-386/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Common Agricultural Policy - Direct support schemes for farmers - Authorisation for granting complementary national direct payments in Lithuania for 2012 - Time limit for bringing an action - Point from which time runs - Inadmissibility - Plea of illegality))
   2014/C 380/17
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Kėdainių rajono Okainių ŽŪB (Okainiai, Lithuania) and the 134 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the order (represented by: I. Vėgėlė, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Vaičiukaitė and E. Karlsson, acting as Agents); and European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, K. Vainienė, A. Karbauskas, R. Makelis and K. Anužis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application seeking, first, the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 4391 final of 2 July 2012 authorising the making of complementary national direct payments in Lithuania for 2012 and, secondly, a declaration of the partial illegality of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Kėdainių rajono Okainių ŽŪB and the 134 other applicants appearing in the annex shall, in addition to bearing their own costs, pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.

               3.

               The Republic of Lithuania shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 October 2004 in Case C-442/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État): Caixa-Bank France v Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie (Freedom of establishment — Credit institutions — National legislation prohibiting the payment of remuneration on sight accounts)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 5 October 2004
   in Case C-442/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État): Caixa-Bank France v Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Credit institutions - National legislation prohibiting the payment of remuneration on sight accounts)
   (2004/C 300/30)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-442/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Conseil d'État (France), made by decision of 6 November 2002, received at the Court on 5 December 2002, in the proceedings brought by Caixa-Bank France against Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie, interveners: Banque fédérale des banques populaires and Others — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Article 43 EC precludes legislation of a Member State which prohibits a credit institution which is a subsidiary of a company from another Member State from remunerating sight accounts in euros opened by residents of the former Member State.

      (1)   OJ C 19 du 25.1.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court of 28 September 2015 in Case E-6/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom to provide services — Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market — Local authorisation requirement for construction works)

text:
               17.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 422/7

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 28 September 2015
   in Case E-6/15
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway
   (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom to provide services — Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market — Local authorisation requirement for construction works)
   (2016/C 422/06)
   In Case E-6/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway – APPLICATION for a declaration that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex X of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market), or, alternatively, Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, by maintaining in force Sections 20-1, second paragraph and 22-3 of the Planning and Building Act, read in conjunction with Sections 9-1 to 9-4 and 11-1 of the Building Regulation, which require undertakings carrying out construction works to obtain an authorisation by local municipalities prior to the beginning of their activity, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 28 September 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex X of the EEA Agreement (Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market) by maintaining in force Section 20-1, second paragraph and Section 22-3 of the Planning and Building Act, read in conjunction with Sections 9-1 to 9-4 and 11-1 of the Building Regulation, which require undertakings carrying out construction works to obtain an authorisation by local municipalities prior to the beginning of their activity.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-459/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 11 October 2012 — Werner Krieger v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 11 October 2012 — Werner Krieger v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG
   (Case C-459/12)
   2013/C 9/50
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Werner Krieger

      Defendant: ERGO Lebensversicherung AG

      Question referred

   Must the first indent of Article 15(1) of Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (Second Life Assurance Directive), (1) having regard to Article 31(1) of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (Third Life Assurance Directive), (2) be interpreted as precluding a provision — such as the fourth sentence of Paragraph 5a(2) of the Versicherungsvertragsgesetz (Law on insurance contracts) in the version of the Drittes Gesetz zur Durchführung versicherungsrechtlicher Richtlinien des Rates der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (Third Law implementing directives of the Council of the European Communities on insurance law) of 21 July 1994 — under which a right of cancellation lapses one year at the latest after payment of the first premium even if the policy-holder has not been informed about the right of cancellation?

      (1)  OJ 1990 L 330, p. 50.

      (2)  OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1.


title: Case F-74/07: Action brought on 3 July 2007 — Stefan Meierhofer v Commission

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/21

         Action brought on 3 July 2007 — Stefan Meierhofer v Commission
   (Case F-74/07)
   (2007/C 223/37)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Stefan Meierhofer (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H.-G. Schiessl, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the defendant's decision of 10 May 2007 concerning the applicant;

               —

               Annulment of the defendant's appeal decision of 19 June 2007;

               —

               Order the defendant to reassess in the light of the current assessment criteria the oral examination taken by the applicant on 29 March 2007;

               —

               Order the defendant to take a new decision on the applicant's inclusion on the reserve list for recruitment competition AD/26/05 in the light of the new examination results;

               —

               Order the defendant to give reasons for is new decisions;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant participated in EU recruitment competition AD/26/05 (AD5 officials). On completion of the examination the applicant was notified by the examination board that he had not been placed on the reserve list as he had not obtained the mark required.
   The applicant claims that insufficient reasons were given for the Commission's decision not to place him on the reserve list and claims that procedural errors occurred during the oral examination.


title: Case T-769/14: Action brought on 14 November 2014 — CGI Luxembourg and Intrasoft International v Parliament

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/54

         Action brought on 14 November 2014 — CGI Luxembourg and Intrasoft International v Parliament
   (Case T-769/14)
   (2015/C 046/70)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: CGI Luxembourg SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg) and Intrasoft International SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the European Parliament’s decision to select the tender of the applicants as second in the cascade in Lot 3 ‘Development and maintenance of production information system’ of the open Call for Tenders (the ‘CfT’) No PE/ITEC/ITS14 ‘External Provision of IT Services’ and the decision of the European Parliament to award the first cascade contract to the ‘Steel consortium’;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the applicants’ damages suffered for the loss of contract;

               —

               alternatively, order the European Parliament to pay the applicants’ damages suffered of the loss of opportunity; and

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the applicants legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the existence of errors in the evaluation formula, contradictory instructions to the tenderers, infringement of the instructions to tenderers, infringement of the Tender specifications, infringement of the principles of Transparency and Good Administration.

                           —

                           The applicants submit that the evaluation formula, as presented in the Technical Specifications contained a number of errors. In addition, the Evaluation Committee used a different formula than the one announced, without informing the tenderers and used values from a table other than the one announced in the answers to the questions of the tenderers.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 110 of the Financial Regulation and 149 of the Delegated Regulation — The formula used does not lead to the award of the contract to the tender offering the best value for money.

                           —

                           The applicants submit that the table, from which the Evaluation Committee extracted the values in order to apply the evaluation formula, does not correspond to the way the contract is expected to be executed. As a result the elements taken into consideration do not correspond to the real needs of the European Parliament, which will necessarily lead to the award of the cascade contracts to tenderers that do not offer the best value for money for the needs thereof.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging vagueness and ambiguity of the Tender Specification.

                           —

                           The applicants submit that the European Parliament introduces through its letters an interpretation of the Technical Specifications which is contradictory with other sections of the same specifications, the answers of its own services to the questions of the tenderers and the objectives of the contract awarded. As a result, the Technical Specifications can lead the tenderers to errors impeding them from elaborating their best pricing strategy and therefore submitting their best offer.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons — of the right to an effective remedy and of an essential procedural requirement.

                           —

                           The applicants submit that the information communicated to them through the letters of the European Parliament after the announcement of the award of the contract in the disputed Call for Tenders does not constitute adequate motivation, since it is largely insufficient in order to permit to the applicants to apply the evaluation formula and verify the correct evaluation thereof. The European Parliament did not disclose fully the information taken into consideration in order to apply the evaluation formula, although the financial offer of the first cascade contractor was the deciding factor for the ranking of the applicants as second successful tenderer, since the applicants’ offer was ranked largely first in the quality assessment of the tenders and only after the consideration of the price, the rank changed.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the Tender Specifications and of Article 107 (1) (a) of the Financial Regulation.

                           —

                           The applicants submit that according to publicly available information, two companies participating in ‘exclusion’ lots including the first cascade contractor of Lot 3 have merged and therefore they cannot be awarded the above contracts. The above contractors dispose of an evident conflict of interest if they were indeed invited to execute the contract.


title: Case T-140/08: Action brought on 14 April 2008 — Ferrero v OHIM — Tirol Milch (TiMi KINDERJOGHURT)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/35

         Action brought on 14 April 2008 — Ferrero v OHIM — Tirol Milch (TiMi KINDERJOGHURT)
   (Case T-140/08)
   (2008/C 142/63)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ferrero SpA (Alba, Italy) (represented by: C. Gielen, lawyer, and F. Jacobacci, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tirol Milch rGmbH (Innsbruck, Austria)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 January 2008 in case R 628/2007-2; and

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: A word mark consisting of the words ‘TiMi KINDERJOGHURT’ for goods in class 29 — application No 792 978

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Tirol Milch reg. Gen. mbH

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Invalidity of the challenged trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Cancellation Division's decision and dismissal of the request for declaration of invalidity

      Pleas in law: The Second Board of Appeal erred in establishing that the previous final decisions between the same parties and concerning the same trade mark are binding in the subsequent action for invalidity before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal; Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the challenged trade mark is similar to an earlier trade mark.


title: Case T-656/14: Action brought on 11 September 2014  — Peri v OHIM (Shape of a formwork coupler)

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/22

         Action brought on 11 September 2014 — Peri v OHIM (Shape of a formwork coupler)
   (Case T-656/14)
   2014/C 388/27
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Peri GmbH (Weißenhorn, Germany) (represented by A. Bognár and M. Eck, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 June 2014 in Case R 1178/2013-1;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The three-dimensional mark in the shape of a formwork coupler for goods in Classes 6 and 19 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 8 26  766

      Decision of the Examiner: The application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-570/10: Action brought on 17 December 2010 — Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Wolf (Representation of the head of a wolf)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/27

         Action brought on 17 December 2010 — Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Wolf (Representation of the head of a wolf)
   (Case T-570/10)
   2011/C 63/53
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Environmental Manufacturing LLP (Stowmarket, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, barrister, and M. Atkins, solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société Elmar Wolf, SAS (Wissembourg, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 October 2010 in case R 425/2010-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark representing the head of a wolf, for goods in class 7 — Community trade mark application No 4971511

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: French trade mark registration No 99786007 of the figurative mark ‘WOLF Jardin’ for goods in classes 1, 5, 7, 8, 12 and 31; French trade mark registration No 1480873 of the figurative mark ‘Outils WOLF’ for goods in classes 7 and 8; International trade mark registration No 154431 of the figurative mark ‘Outils WOLF’ for goods in classes 7 and 8; International trade mark registration No 352868 of the figurative mark ‘Outils WOLF’ for goods in classes 7, 8, 12 and 21

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division

      Pleas in law: The applicant contends that the contested decision infringes Articles 42(2) and 42(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to identify within the class of products for which the earlier marks were registered a coherent sub-category capable of being viewed independently of the wider class, and therefore failed to conclude that there had only been proof that the mark has been put to genuine use in relation to part of the goods for which the marks were protected.
   In addition, the applicant contends that the contested decision infringes Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misidentified the relevant consumer, wrongly concluded that there would be a relevant link and failed to apply the criterion of an effect on the economic behaviour of the relevant consumer and the criterion that in order to be considered unfair, the mark must transfer some image or confer some marketing boost to the junior users’ goods, which was not the case. Further the Board of Appeal failed to realise that the proprietor of the earlier mark had not even correctly alleged the relevant harm under Article 8(5), still less proved that it was likely, and had therefore failed to discharge the burden upon it.


title: Case C-470/15: Order of the President of the Court of 15 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Lufthansa Cargo AG v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/12

         Order of the President of the Court of 15 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Lufthansa Cargo AG v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu
   (Case C-470/15) (1)

   (2016/C 078/18)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


title: Case F-73/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Van Neyghem v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Open competition — Assessment of the written test — Time-limit for lodging a complaint — Admissibility — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/54

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Van Neyghem v Commission
   (Case F-73/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Open competition - Assessment of the written test - Time-limit for lodging a complaint - Admissibility - Duty to state reasons)
   (2008/C 22/102)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Kris Van Neyghem (Vissenaken, Belgium) (represented: initially by S. Rodrigues, A. Jaume and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers, then by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and M. Velardo)
   Re:
   Annulment of the EPSO decision of 1 June 2005 not to admit the applicant to the oral test of Competition EPSO/A/19/04 by reason of the insufficient result of his written test, and, secondly, a claim for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190 of 12.8.2006, p. 37.


title: Case C-110/05: Action brought on 4 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/12

         Action brought on 4 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-110/05)
   (2005/C 115/23)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Recchia and F. Amato, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by prohibiting the towing of trailers by motor vehicles the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

               2.

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Under Article 56 of the Codice della strada (Italian highway code) the towing of trailers by any motor vehicle other than a tractor unit is prohibited in Italy.
   According to the Commission there can be no doubt that the effect of that prohibition is to restrict the use of trailers lawfully produced and sold in Members States where there is no such prohibition, thereby establishing an obstacle to their importation and sale in Italy.
   Consequently, the Commission submits that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC.


title: Case T-257/11: Action brought on 23 May 2011 — Pangyrus v OHIM — RSVP Design (COLOURBLIND)

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/29

         Action brought on 23 May 2011 — Pangyrus v OHIM — RSVP Design (COLOURBLIND)
   (Case T-257/11)
   2011/C 211/62
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pangyrus Ltd (York, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Clubb, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: RSVP Design Ltd (Renfrewshire, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 March 2011 in case R 751/2009-4;

               —

               Restore the decision of the Cancellation Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 May 2009; and

               —

               Award the costs in favour of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘COLOURBLIND’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28, 35 and 41 — Community trade mark registration No 3337979

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity based its request on two grounds, namely Article 53(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, by invoking an earlier unregistered right protected under the law of passing-off in the United Kingdom, as well as on the existence of bad faith in accordance with Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the Community trade mark registration invalid in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division and rejected the request for declaration of invalidity

      Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the Board of Appeal erred in law in finding that: (i) the Community trade mark proprietor did not act in bad faith when it applied for the Community trade mark; and (ii) the applicant had failed to prove that it had used an earlier sign in the course of trade before the date in which the contested Community trade mark was applied for.


title: Case F-46/12: Action brought on 23 April 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/25

         Action brought on 23 April 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-46/12)
   2012/C 184/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/111/10 not to include the applicant’s name on the list of successful candidates of that competition.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/111/10 not to include the applicant’s name on the list of successful candidates of that competition;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-36/08: Action brought on 28 January 2008 — Furukawa Electric North America v OHIM (SLIM LINE)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/32

         Action brought on 28 January 2008 — Furukawa Electric North America v OHIM (SLIM LINE)
   (Case T-36/08)
   (2008/C 79/62)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Furukawa Electric North America, Inc. (Norcross, United States of America) (represented by O. Rauscher, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 November 2007 in case number R 1532/2007-2;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SLIM LINE’ for goods in Class 9 (Application No 5 907 266)

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as the name ‘SLIM LINE’ is neither a descriptive indication nor is it devoid of any distinctive character.

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


title: Case F-46/11: Action brought on 14 April 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/35

         Action brought on 14 April 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-46/11)
   2011/C 186/67
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to close the file on the applicant’s request for assistance.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the Commission of 7 June 2010 closing the file on the applicant’s request for assistance of 5 December 2007;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay compensation of EUR 10 000, subject to increase in the course of proceedings, for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant, and to reimburse the costs incurred in the pre-litigation procedure;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-652/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Liedtke/Parliament

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/21

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Liedtke/Parliament
   (Case T-652/15)
   (2016/C 078/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Dirk Liedtke (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)8547 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all of the applicant’s arguments

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: Case C-68/14: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta — Italy) — Equitalia Nord SpA v CLR di Camelliti Serafino & C. Snc Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 106 TFEU and 107 TFEU — Competition — Concept of ‘State aid’ — National legislation — Use of buildings for institutional purposes — Rent reduction — Factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings — Lack of sufficient information — Need for a reply to the questions referred — Lack of information — Manifest inadmissibility

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/10

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta — Italy) — Equitalia Nord SpA v CLR di Camelliti Serafino & C. Snc
   (Case C-68/14) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 106 TFEU and 107 TFEU - Competition - Concept of ‘State aid’ - National legislation - Use of buildings for institutional purposes - Rent reduction - Factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings - Lack of sufficient information - Need for a reply to the questions referred - Lack of information - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2015/C 146/15)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale ordinario di Aosta

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Equitalia Nord SpA

      Defendant: CLR di Camelliti Serafino & C. Snc

      Operative part of the order

   The request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta (Italy), by decision of 12 December 2013, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Case T-33/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Peeters Landbouwmachines v OHIM — Fors MW (BIGAB)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/24

         Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Peeters Landbouwmachines v OHIM — Fors MW (BIGAB)
   (Case T-33/11)
   2011/C 80/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Peeters Landbouwmachines BV (Etten-Leur, Netherlands) (represented by: P.N.A.M. Claassen, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AS Fors MW (Saue, Republic of Estonia)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 November 2010 in case R 210/2010-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to declare invalid the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for invalidity, or order the defendant to declare invalid the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for invalidity as far as it concerns the registration for Class 7; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘BIGAB’ for goods in classes 6, 7 and 12 — Community trade mark registration No 4363842

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request on absolute and relative grounds for invalidity pursuant to Articles 52(1)(b) and 53(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant contends that the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of bad faith and failed to recognise the importance of similarity between the goods covered by the compared trade marks.


title: Case F-15/07: Action brought on 27 February 2007 — K v European Parliament

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/58

         Action brought on 27 February 2007 — K v European Parliament
   (Case F-15/07)
   (2007/C 95/116)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: K (represented by Dieter Struck)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the European Parliament of 29 November 2006 rejecting the applicant's application;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages for pain and suffering and compensation;

               —

               declare the principle of equal treatment to have been infringed and deliberate and intentional harm to the applicant's general rights as an individual to have taken place;

               —

               declare the defendant to have infringed the principle of legitimate expectations and the obligation to give reasons for administrative acts, as also the principle of non-discrimination;

               —

               order the defendant to bear all the costs incurred in connection with the bringing of the action and the costs of the action itself.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who was an official at the European Parliament from 1 January 1978, seeks damages for pain and suffering and compensation from the defendant by reason of conduct leading to the infringement of the applicant's general rights as an individual and the unusual circumstances which led to the applicant's retirement on the ground of ill health.


title: Case C-339/13: Action brought on 20 June 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/21

         Action brought on 20 June 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-339/13)
   2013/C 252/34
   Language of the procedure: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 5(2) of Directive 1999/74/EC; (1)

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposing Article 5 of Directive 1999/74/EC expired on 10 January 2012.

      (1)  Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens (OJ L 203, 3.8.1999, p. 53).


title: Case C-472/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 23 October 2008 — Alstom Power Hydro v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 23 October 2008 — Alstom Power Hydro v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-472/08)
   (2008/C 327/37)
   Language of the case: Latvian
   Referring court
   Augstākās tiesas Senāts
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alstom Power Hydro

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   Question referred
   On a proper construction of Article 18(4) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977, is it contrary to that provision for domestic legislation to lay down a limitation period of three years for the exercise of the right to recover sums of VAT overpaid (the difference between output tax and deductible input tax)?

      (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 T-181/12: Action brought on 26 April 2012 — Bateni v Council

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/28

         Action brought on 26 April 2012 — Bateni v Council
   (Case T-181/12)
   2012/C 174/46
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Naser Bateni (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Kienzle and M. Schlingmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 to the extent that it concerns the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs, including those of the applicant;

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence

                           —

                           The Council infringed the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection and in particular the obligation to state reasons in so far as it did not provide a sufficient statement of reasons for the inclusion of the applicant in Annex IX to the contested regulation.

                           —

                           The Council infringed the applicant’s right to a hearing by not providing it with the opportunity, conferred by Article 46(3) and (4) of the contested regulation, to present observations on its inclusion in the sanctions lists and thus to cause the Council to carry out a review.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that there was no basis for including the applicant in the sanctions lists

                           —

                           The reasons given for including the applicant in the sanctions lists did not make it possible to identify the precise legal basis on which the Council acted.

                           —

                           An activity carried out by the applicant until only March 2008 cannot justify his inclusion in the sanctions lists in December 2011.

                           —

                           The applicant’s activity as manager of the Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping (HTTS) GmbH does not justify his inclusion in the sanctions lists, in particular because the General Court of the European Union annulled Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (1) to the extent that it concerned HTTS GmbH.

                           —

                           The mere fact that the applicant was manager of an English company which has since been dissolved cannot constitute a reason under Article 23(2) of the contested regulation for including the applicant in the sanctions lists.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right to property

                           —

                           The applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists constitutes an unjustified interference with his fundamental right to property, since the applicant — because of the inadequate reasons given by the Council — is unable to understand the reasons why he was included in the list of persons affected by the sanctions.

                           —

                           The applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists is obviously inappropriate for the pursuit of the goals of the contested regulation and also constitutes a disproportionate interference with his property rights.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1).


title: Case C-42/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 7 February 2008 — M. Ilhan v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 7 February 2008 — M. Ilhan v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-42/08)
   (2008/C 92/33)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: M. Ilhan

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Question referred
   Do the provisions of the EC Treaty on the freedom to provide services (Articles 49 EC to 55 EC) or the principle of proportionality preclude a Member State from applying a statutory rule that requires a person who is resident or established in that Member State, and who has at his disposal a car registered in another Member State which has been leased for a period of three years by a leasing undertaking established in that other Member State, and who uses that car essentially in the first Member State for business and private purposes, to pay a tax on the basis of commencement of use (with that car) of the public highway in the first Member State, without account being taken of the duration of future actual use in that Member State?


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 April 1999 in Case C-340/96: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Irland (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 80/778/EEC - Water intended for human consumption - Rules designed to ensure implementation of water-quality standards)

text:
17.7.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 204/3
Point 4(a) of Section J of Annex VI to Council Regulation (EEC)            1. Dismisses the application;
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to               2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
members of their families moving within the Community, as amended
and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June
1983, as adapted by Annex I, Part VIII, to the Act concerning the
Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese         (1) OJ C 76 of 12.3.1994.
Republic and the Adjustments to the Treaties, must be interpreted as
not requiring the competent Netherlands institution, to which an
application for a pro rata invalidity benefit has been made by a
worker who has suffered an incapacity for work which arose in
another Member State, to treat the periods of insurance completed by
that worker in the Netherlands after 1 July 1967 under a special
scheme for civil servants as if they were periods of insurance
completed under the Wet op de Arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering of
18 February 1966.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 22 April 1999
                                                                           in Case C-340/96: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Irland (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 80/778/EEC —
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                   Water intended for human consumption — Rules designed
                                                                               to ensure implementation of water-quality standards)
                         of 22 April 1999
                                                                                (1999/C 204/05)
in Case C-28/94 Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1990 financial year
                             — Butter)
                          (1999/C 204/04)                                  In Case C-340/96: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agent: Richard B. Wainwright) v United Kingdom of Great
                                                                           Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: John E. Collins, assisted
                                                                           by Derek Wyatt and Mark Hoskins) — application for a
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                          declaration that by failing, by the acceptance of undertakings,
                                                                           — to enforce compliance by water companies with the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          requirements of Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July
                   in the European Court Reports)                               1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human
                                                                                consumption (OJ 1980 L 229, p. 11) and
In Case C-28/94: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: J.W. de
Zwaan and J.S van den Oosterkamp) v Commission of the                      — by failing thereby, to ensure that the quality of water
European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and M. van der                        supplied in several parts of the United Kingdom conforms
Woude) — application for partial annulment of Commission                        to the requirements of that Directive in that maximum
Decision 93/659/EC of 25 November 1993 on the clearance                         admissible concentrations for several parameters in the
of the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of                    Directive are exceeded, the United Kingdom has failed to
the expenditure for 1990 of the European Agricultural Guid-                     fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty —
ance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section (OJ
1993 L 301, p. 13) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                   the Court (Fifth Chamber) composed of: P. Jann, President of
of P.J.G Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch,                     the First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,
G.F. Mancini (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen,                  J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl Principal                    D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22               General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
April 1999 in which it:                                                    a judgment on 22 April 1999, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 204/4                    EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          17.7.1999
1. Declares that, by accepting undertakings from water companies              1. Dismisses the appeal;
     for the purpose of ensuring that water complies with the
     requirements of Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980             2. Orders Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH to pay the costs.
     relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption,
     without the conditions governing the acceptance of such under-
     takings being specified in the Water Industry Act 1991, the              (1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.
     United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has
     failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and under that
     directive;
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 370 of 7.12.1996.
                                                                                of 22 April 1999
                                                                              in Case C-272/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
                                                                              (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      Reasoned opinion — Principle of collegiality — Directive
                                                                              90/605/EEC amending the scope of Directives 78/660/EEC
                                                                              and 83/349/EEC — Annual accounts and consolidated
                              (First Chamber)                                                                  accounts)
                             of 22 April 1999                                                             (1999/C 204/07)
in Case C-161/97 P: Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH v
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                                                 (Language of the case: German)
(Euratom Treaty — Action for annulment and action for                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
damages — Conclusion of a contract for the supply of                                               in the European Court Reports)
uranium — Simplified procedure — Powers of the Agency
— Time-limit for conclusion of the contract — Legal obstacle
to conclusion — Diversification policy — Origin of the                        In Case C-272/97: Commission of the European Communities
                 uranium — Market-related prices)                             (Agents: António Caeiro and Jürgen Grunwald) v Federal
                                                                              Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder and Alfred Dittrich)
                                                                              — application for a declaration that, by failing to implement
                             (1999/C 204/06)                                  within the prescribed period all measures necessary to comply
                                                                              with Council Directive 90/605/EEC of 8 November 1990
                                                                              amending Directive 78/660/EEC on annual accounts and
                      (Language of the case: German)                          Directive 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts as regards the
                                                                              scope of those Directives (OJ 1990 L 317, p. 60), the Federal
                                                                              Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        the EC Treaty — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of
                      in the European Court Reports)                          P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Man-
                                                                              cini, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges;
In Case C-161/97 P: Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH, a                          G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
company incorporated under German law, established in                         judgment on 22 April 1999, in which it:
Lingen, Germany, represented by Bernd Kunth, Gerhard
Wiedemann and Helmut Nicolaus, Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf,                     1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
Alex Bonn, 22 Côte d’Eich — appeal against the judgment                           comply with Council Directive 90/605/EEC of 8 November
of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended                           1990 amending Directive 78/660/EEC on annual accounts and
Composition) of 25 February 1997 in Joined Cases T-149/94                         Directive 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts as regards the
and T-181/94 Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems v Commission                                scope of those Directives, the Federal Republic of Germany has
[1997] ECR II-161, seeking to have that judgment set aside,                       failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
the other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: Jürgen Grunwald) — the Court                     2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
(First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),                          (1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
22 April 1999, in which it:


title: Case F-71/10: Action brought on 30 August 2010 — Cantisani v Commission

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/49

         Action brought on 30 August 2010 — Cantisani v Commission
   (Case F-71/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/87
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Nicola Cantisani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. de Lannoy, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission's decision rejecting the applicant's request for assistance in respect of harrassment and claim for compensation.

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Director of the Directorate General for Personnel and Administration of the Commission of 9 October 2009 (ADMIN.B2/JJ/jm 0(09)) whereby the adminstration decided it did not need to take action in respect of the applicant's request to the Commission for assistance of 29 January 2009;

               —

               Compensate the applicant for material and non-material damage suffered by reason of the acts of harrassment;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case F-47/10: Action brought on 18 June 2010 — Hecq v Commission

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/61

         Action brought on 18 June 2010 — Hecq v Commission
   (Case F-47/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/97
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: André Hecq (Chaumont-Gistoux, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the Commission decisions refusing to accept that the applicant suffers from partial permanent invalidity within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and making him liable for part of the fees and expenses incurred during the proceedings of the medical committee

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority on 5 March 2010 (and communicated by electronic mail of 8 March 2010), rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant, dated 9 December 2009, against two administrative decisions dated 7 September 2009 which, respectively, contain a definitive refusal to accept that the applicant suffers from any form of invalidity, under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, and which furthermore require the applicant to pay half of the fees and expenses of the doctor who presided over the medical committee, amounting to EUR 500 (subsequently reduced to EUR 300), and to also pay all (then, subsequently, a quota of 60 %) of the fees and expenses of the doctor who represented him in connection with the proceedings of that medical committee;

               —

               also annul those decisions dated 7 September 2009;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-74/12: Action brought on 16 February 2012 — Mecafer v Commission

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/28

         Action brought on 16 February 2012 — Mecafer v Commission
   (Case T-74/12)
   2012/C 118/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mecafer SA (Valence, France) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the application admissible;

               —

               Partially annul Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8804 final, of 6 December 2011, insofar as it only grants a partial refund of the anti-dumping duties paid by the applicant and unlawfully retains additional amounts of refunds of anti-dumping duties legitimately due to the applicant;

               —

               Order maintenance in force of the contested decision until the European Commission has adopted measures necessary to comply with any judgment of the Court; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the legal costs and expenses of the procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in applying an appropriate and reasonable unrelated EU importer profit margin, thereby failing to establish a reliable export price for the purpose of calculating the correct anti-dumping refund amount leading to infringements of Articles 2(9) and 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. (1)

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by deducting anti-dumping duties as a cost in the calculation of the export price thereby failing to establish a reliable dumping margin for the purpose of calculating the correct anti-dumping refund amount and in doing so violated Articles 2(9), 2(11) and 11(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to inform it of the necessary requirements for satisfying Article 11(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 in a prompt and adequate manner thereby committing violations of the rights of defence enshrined in EU general law as well as the principle of sound administration also established in EU general law and also Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) 1225/2009 on Protection Against Dumped Imports From Countries not Members of the European Community, OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51.


title: Case C-1/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa — Portugal) — Ordem dos Técnicos Oficiais de Contas v Autoridade da Concorrência (Association of chartered accountants — Rules relating to a system of compulsory training for chartered accountants — Article 101 TFEU — Association of undertakings — Restriction of competition — Justifications — Article 106(2) TFEU)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/17

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa — Portugal) — Ordem dos Técnicos Oficiais de Contas v Autoridade da Concorrência
   (Case C-1/12) (1)

   (Association of chartered accountants - Rules relating to a system of compulsory training for chartered accountants - Article 101 TFEU - Association of undertakings - Restriction of competition - Justifications - Article 106(2) TFEU)
   2013/C 114/24
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ordem dos Técnicos Oficiais de Contas

      Defendant: Autoridade da Concorrência

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa — Interpretation of Articles 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 101 and 102 TFEU — Notion of association of undertakings — Association of chartered accountants — Creation of a mandatory training system for members of the association of chartered accountants — Training provided solely by the association of chartered accountants — Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A regulation such as the Training Credits Regulation (Regulamento da Formação de Créditos), adopted by a professional association such as the Ordem dos Técnicos Oficiais de Contas (Order of Chartered Accountants), must be regarded as a decision of an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU.
               The fact that a professional association, such as the Ordem dos Técnicos Oficiais de Contas, is legally required to put into place a system of compulsory training for its members cannot remove from the scope of Article 101 TFEU the rules drawn up by that professional association, insofar as those rules are a matter for it alone.
               The fact that those rules do not have any direct effect on the economic activity of the members of that professional association does not affect the application of Article 101 TFEU, where the infringement of which that professional association is accused concerns a market on which it itself carries on an economic activity.

               2.

               A regulation which puts into place a system of compulsory training for chartered accountants in order to guarantee the quality of the services offered by them, such as the Training Credits Regulation, adopted by a professional association such as the Ordem dos Técnicos Oficiais de Contas, constitutes a restriction on competition prohibited by Article 101 TFEU to the extent, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, that it eliminates competition on a substantial part of the relevant market, to the benefit of that professional association, and that it imposes, on the other part of that market, discriminatory conditions to the detriment of competitors of that professional association.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.


title: Case T-77/13: Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2014  — Laboratoires Polive v OHIM — Arbora & Ausonia (DODIE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DODIE — Earlier national word mark DODOT — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Power to alter decisions)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2014 — Laboratoires Polive v OHIM — Arbora & Ausonia (DODIE)
   (Case T-77/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark DODIE - Earlier national word mark DODOT - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Power to alter decisions))
   2014/C 409/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratoires Polive (Levallois-Perret, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Arbora & Ausonia, SLU (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Guerras Mazón, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 October 2012 (Case R 1949/2011-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Arbora & Ausonia, SLU and Laboratoires Polive.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 31 October 2012 (Case R 1949/2011-2);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Laboratoires Polive;

               4.

               Orders Arbora & Ausonia, SLU to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.


title: Case C-440/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 13 September 2010 — SC SEMTEX Srl v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 13 September 2010 — SC SEMTEX Srl v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău
   (Case C-440/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/25
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Bacău

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: SC SEMTEX Srl

      Respondents: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the first paragraph of Article 110 TFEU (formerly Article 90 EC), under which no Member State may impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products, preclude the establishment of a pollution tax for motor vehicles which is levied upon the first registration in the territory of a Member State, which has the characteristics specified by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008 and which may constitute an internal tax on goods coming from other Member States, account being taken of the fact that the tax is not levied upon the re-registering in Romania of a motor vehicle which has the same characteristics as an imported second-hand motor vehicle?

               2.

               Does the second paragraph of Article 110 TFEU (formerly Article 90 EC), under which no Member State may impose on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products, preclude the establishment of a pollution tax for motor vehicles which is levied upon the first registration in the territory of a Member State and which has the characteristics specified by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008, account being taken of the fact that exemption from payment of the pollution tax was granted under Government Emergency Order No 218/2008 for the category of motor vehicle which possesses the technical characteristics of the motor vehicles manufactured in Romania?


title: Case C-53/05: Action brought on 9 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/17

         Action brought on 9 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-53/05)
   (2005/C 82/36)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by P. Andrade and W.Wils, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Portuguese Republic, by having exempted all categories of establishments from the obligation to pay remuneration to authors on public lending, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5, in conjunction with Article 1, of Council Directive 92/100/EEC (1) of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Before the adoption of Directive 92/100, Portuguese law did not recognise an author's right to remuneration on the lending of a work in relation to which the distribution right was exhausted. Currently Portuguese law recognises the right to remuneration but, by exempting all categories of public-lending establishments from the obligation to pay such remuneration, for the purposes of Directive 92/100, it has rendered that right ineffective and has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of the directive.

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61.