title: Case T-42/09: Action brought on 28 January 2009 — A. Loacker SpA v OHIM

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/52

         Action brought on 28 January 2009 — A. Loacker SpA v OHIM
   (Case T-42/09)
   (2009/C 69/114)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: A. Loacker SpA (Renon, Italy) (represented by: V. Bilardo, C. Bacchini, M. Mazzitelli, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Editrice Quadratum SpA (Milan, Italy)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Editrice Quadratum SpA.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Quadratum’, registration application No 4653481, for goods in Class 30.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘LOACKER QUADRATINI’, for goods in Class 30.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Action brought by the trade mark applicant upheld.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and of Articles 73 and 74 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case T-57/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Good Luck Shipping v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Good Luck Shipping v Council
   (Case T-57/12) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)
   2013/C 304/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Good Luck Shipping LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: F. Randolph QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and B. Driessen, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of, first, Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), second, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11) and, third, Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as those provisions concern the applicant

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the following measures, in so far as they concern Good Luck Shipping LLC:

                           —

                           Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran;

                           —

                           Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010;

               2.

               Orders that the effects of Decision 2011/783 be maintained as regards Good Luck Shipping until the annulment of Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Good Luck Shipping.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 October 2004 in Case C-357/03 Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 98/24/EC — Protection of the health and safety of workers — Risks related to chemical agents at work — Failure to transpose throughout the territory of the Member State concerned within the prescribed period)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 28 October 2004
   in Case C-357/03 Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 98/24/EC - Protection of the health and safety of workers - Risks related to chemical agents at work - Failure to transpose throughout the territory of the Member State concerned within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 6/25)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-357/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Martin and H. Kreppel) v Republic of Austria (Agent: E. Riedl) – action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 19 August 2003 – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermanns (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris and J. Klučka, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work (14th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 264 of 1.11.2004.


title: Case C-203/07 P: Appeal brought on 16 April 2007 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) on 17 January 2007 in Case T-231/04 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/10

         Appeal brought on 16 April 2007 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) on 17 January 2007 in Case T-231/04 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-203/07 P)
   (2007/C 155/19)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Milonopoulos and S. Trekli)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               allow the present appeal;

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in so far as it is contested;

               —

               grant the application in accordance with the form of order sought;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Hellenic Republic submits that the Court of First Instance of the European Communities misinterpreted Articles 12, 13 and 15 of the initial memorandum of understanding, Article 14 of the additional memorandum and the principles of good faith and of the protection of legitimate expectations, since it held that the obligations of the Member States in connection with the Abuja I and II projects were determined by the conduct of each Member State and not that they were of a purely contractual nature and determined by the provisions of the two abovementioned memoranda; on a proper interpretation of the foregoing provisions of those contractual documents, however, it had to be accepted that financial obligations had not arisen for the Hellenic Republic since it had only signed and had not ratified the additional memorandum, it had therefore not approved that memorandum, and all the special conditions laid down for the arising of financial obligations had not been met in the case of the Hellenic Republic.
   The Hellenic Republic submits that the Court of First Instance of the European Communities misinterpreted Article 15 of the initial memorandum of understanding in holding that, prior to signature of the additional memorandum, an agreement was implicitly concluded by the partners on 24 February 1997 to implement the project and in this way Article 15(1) essentially was set aside or was amended.


title: Case T-75/13: Action brought on 8 February 2013 — Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma/OHIM — Nepentes (Momarid)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/26

         Action brought on 8 February 2013 — Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma/OHIM — Nepentes (Momarid)
   (Case T-75/13)
   2013/C 101/55
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma (Ingelheim, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and D. Slopek, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nepentes S.A. (Warsaw, Poland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul OHIM’s Fourth Board of Appeal’s decision of 28 November 2012 in Case R 2292/2011-4 in so far as it allowed registration of the mark MOMARID in respect of sanitary preparations for medical purposes; dietetic substances adapted for medical use; pharmaceutical and medical preparations, substances and products for protecting, maintaining, treating or conditioning for the skin, body, face, mouth, lips, eyes, hair, hands and nails; pharmaceutical and medical preparations and substances for the care and appearance of the skin, body, face, mouth, lips, eyes, hair, hands and nails; pharmaceutical and medical products and preparations for slimming purposes; dermatological pharmaceutical products, preparations and substances; dermatological preparations for the prevention and treatment of skin disorders; dermatological preparations (medicated); pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of dermatological disorders; pharmaceutical preparations for the topical treatment of dermatological disorders; dermatological medicinal products; veterinary pharmaceutical preparations for dermatological use; veterinary medicinal products for treatment of hormonal disorders; hormones for medical purposes; hormone preparations for veterinary use; hormones; steroid products, hormone preparations for pharmaceutical and medical use; hygiene products; chemicals for pharmaceutical use (the ‘Contested Goods’);

               —

               Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, or — in the event that the other party before OHIM intervenes on the side of the defendant — that they be borne jointly by the defendant and the intervener

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Momarid’ , for goods and services in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 9 164 328

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark No 2 396 448 of the mark ‘LONARID’ for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 50(2)(h) Commission Regulation No 2868/95 and Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-467/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Málaga — Spain) — Criminal proceedings against G. Francesco Gasparini, José M a L.A. Gasparini, G. Costa Bozzo, Juan de Lucchi Calcagno, Francesco Mario Gasparini, José A. Hormiga Marrero, Sindicatura Quiebra (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Article 54 — Ne bis in idem principle — Scope — Acquittal of the accused because their prosecution for the offence is time-barred)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Málaga — Spain) — Criminal proceedings against G. Francesco Gasparini, José Ma L.A. Gasparini, G. Costa Bozzo, Juan de Lucchi Calcagno, Francesco Mario Gasparini, José A. Hormiga Marrero, Sindicatura Quiebra
   (Case C-467/04) (1)

   (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Article 54 - Ne bis in idem principle - Scope - Acquittal of the accused because their prosecution for the offence is time-barred)
   (2006/C 294/16)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Audiencia Provincial de Málaga
   Parties in the main proceedings
   G. Francesco Gasparini, José Ma L.A. Gasparini, G. Costa Bozzo, Juan de Lucchi Calcagno, Francesco Mario Gasparini, José A. Hormiga Marrero, Sindicatura Quiebra
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Málaga — Interpretation of Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19) — Ne bis in idem principle — Scope — Interpretation of Article 24 EC — Scope
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The ne bis in idem principle, enshrined in Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed in Schengen on 19 June 1990, applies in respect of a decision of a court of a Contracting State, made after criminal proceedings have been brought, by which the accused is acquitted finally because prosecution of the offence is time-barred.

               2.

               That principle does not apply to persons other than those whose trial has been finally disposed of in a Contracting State.

               3.

               A criminal court of a Contracting State cannot hold goods to be in free circulation in national territory solely because a criminal court of another Contracting State has found, in relation to the same goods, that prosecution for the offence of smuggling is time-barred.

               4.

               The marketing of goods in another Member State, after their importation into the Member State where the accused was acquitted, constitutes conduct which may form part of the ‘same acts’ within the meaning of Article 54 of the Convention.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 08.01.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 January 2005 in Case C-38/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 28 EC — Measures having equivalent effect — Wheelchairs — Admission to the reimbursement system under the social security scheme)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 13 January 2005
   in Case C-38/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Article 28 EC - Measures having equivalent effect - Wheelchairs - Admission to the reimbursement system under the social security scheme)
   (2005/C 57/11)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-38/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Ström and F. Simonetti) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: initially A. Snoecx, then E. Dominkovits) supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea) – ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 3 February 2003 – the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: A. Borg Barthet, President of Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 January 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that,

                           —

                           by laying down the technical criteria to be met by wheelchairs in order to be eligible for reimbursement by social security in such a way as to exclude from the list of reimbursable wheelchairs those bearing EC markings but which do not meet the relevant criteria, namely, as regards the diameter of the front and rear wheels, the cover and filling of the seat and back, the dimensions of the flat sections and crossbars, head rests and/or foot or leg rests;

                           —

                           by laying down more general criteria which the economic operator must meet in order to be included on the list of reimbursable wheelchairs, namely special conditions for manual wheelchairs, as well as special conditions for power wheelchairs according to which such wheelchairs must be available in a minimum number of seat sizes;

                           —

                           by being too rigid in its updating of the list of equipment admitted to the reimbursement scheme,

                     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 70, 22.03.2003.


title: Case T-195/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of  20 September 2005  — Deloitte Business Advisory v Commission (Interim measures — Community tendering procedure — Loss of an opportunity — Urgency — Balance of interests)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/25

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 20 September 2005 — Deloitte Business Advisory v Commission
   (Case T-195/05 R)
   (Interim measures - Community tendering procedure - Loss of an opportunity - Urgency - Balance of interests)
   (2005/C 296/54)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Deloitte Business Advisory (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Van Heuven, S. Ronse and S. Logie, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and E. Manhaeve, Agents)
   Application for
   interim measures seeking, first, an order suspending the operation of (1) the Commission decision rejecting the tender submitted, inter alia, by the applicant under a call for tenders bearing reference SANCO/2004/01/041 and (2) the decision to award the contract in question to a third party and, secondly, an order prohibiting the Commission (1) from informing the successful tenderer of the decision awarding the contract in question and (2) from proceeding with signature of the relevant contract, on pain of a periodic penalty payment.
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed;

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-341/11: Action brought on 30 June 2011 — Ecologistas en Acción-CODA v Commission

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/40

         Action brought on 30 June 2011 — Ecologistas en Acción-CODA v Commission
   (Case T-341/11)
   2011/C 252/89
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Ecologistas en Acción-CODA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J Doreste Harnández, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul, for failure to reply within the time limit prescribed, the rejection decision of the Secretary General of the European Commission refusing the applicant access to the requested documents in proceedings GESTDEM 2011/6;

               —

               recognise the right of ECOLOGISTAS EN ACCION to receive the requested documents which they were unduly refused by the Commission, that is to say:

                           (a)

                           the summary by the Spanish Ministry of Environment of the information submitted to the European Commission concerning the environmental assessment of the construction of the Grandilla Port, transmitted to the permanent Representation of Spain to the European Union on 4 November 2005,

                           (b)

                           the explanatory note, complementary information by Gobierno de Canarias, November 2005,

                           (c)

                           the alternative analysis concerning the location of the Grandilla Port by Gobierno de Canarias, July 2005; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   At the origin of this action is a request for information of an environmental nature which was implicitly rejected by the European Commission.
   The information which was refused consists of 3 documents submitted to the European Commission by the Spanish authorities for the Commission to give an opinion, pursuant to Article 6(4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), on the construction of a port in Granadilla (Tenerife, Spain).
   In support of its action, the applicant raises two pleas in law.

               1.

               Its first plea in law in based on an infringement of 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).

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that respect that the defendant failed to inform EOLOGISTAS EN ACCIÓN in writing of its grounds for refusing access to the 3 requested documents and left the decision on whether to grant the applicant access to that information to the Spanish State, even though none of those documents falls within the exceptions referred to in Article 4(1),(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

               2.

               Its second plea in law is based on an infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

                           —

                           In the applicant's view, since the 3 requested documents concern ‘environmental information’, the implied rejection of its request constitutes an infringement of the letter and spirit of Regulation No 1367/2006 and of the Aarhus Convention.


title: Case T-167/15: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 — Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise v EUIPO — Freistaat Bayern (NEUSCHWANSTEIN) (EU trade mark — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — EU word mark NEUSCHWANSTEIN — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No distinctive character — Distinctive character — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — No bad faith)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 — Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise v EUIPO — Freistaat Bayern (NEUSCHWANSTEIN)
   (Case T-167/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - EU word mark NEUSCHWANSTEIN - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character - Distinctive character - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - No bad faith))
   (2016/C 305/43)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise eV (Veitsbronn, Germany) (represented by: B. Bittner, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Freistaat Bayern (Germany) (represented by: M. Müller, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2015 (Case R 28/2014-5), relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise and Freistaat Bayern.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise eV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 June 2004 in Case C-87/02: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects — Project ‘Lotto zero’)

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 10 June 2004
   in Case C-87/02: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects - Project ‘Lotto zero’)
   (2004/C 190/02)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-87/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. van Beek and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic (Agents: M. Massella Ducci Teri ) - application for a declaration that, since the Abruzzo Region failed to ascertain whether the project to construct an outer ring road at Teramo (a project known as ‘Lotto zero-Variante, tra Teramo (Italy) e Giulianova, alla strada statale SS 80’), of a type listed in Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), required an environmental impact assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the Directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) of that directive - the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, since the Abruzzo Region failed to ascertain whether the project to construct an outer ring road at Teramo (a project known as ‘Lotto zero-Variante, tra Teramo e Giulianova, alla strada statale SS 80’), of a type listed in Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, required an environmental impact assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of that directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) of that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.


               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/52

         Removal from the Register of Case T-320/99 (1)

   (2004/C 118/114)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 23 March 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-320/99, W.R. Milder supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.


title: Case T-425/14: Action brought on 11 June 2014 — ClientEarth v Commission

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/35

         Action brought on 11 June 2014 — ClientEarth v Commission
   (Case T-425/14)
   2014/C 303/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer, F. Heringa and J. Wolfhagen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision to refuse access to documents requested by the applicant pursuant to 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, as communicated to the Applicant on 1 April 2014 in a letter with the reference SG.B.4/LR/rc-sg.dsg2.b.4(2014) 1029188;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision to refuse access to the Commission’s Impact Assessment Report, as well as the opinion of the Impact Assessment Board regarding the revision of the EU legal framework on environmental inspections and surveillance at national and EU level.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-424/14, ClientEarth v Commission.


title: Case C-178/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 5 April 2017 — Graziano Garavaldi v Ministero della Giustizia

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 5 April 2017 — Graziano Garavaldi v Ministero della Giustizia
   (Case C-178/17)
   (2017/C 277/31)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Graziano Garavaldi

      Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia

      Question referred

   Does the principle that everyone is entitled to a hearing by an impartial tribunal within a reasonable time, affirmed in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, which has become a principle of European Union law by virtue of Article 6(3) TEU, read in conjunction with the principle arising from Article 67 TFEU, according to which the Union is to constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights, and the principle arising from Articles 81 and 82 TFEU, according to which, in civil and criminal matters having cross-border implications, the Union is to develop judicial cooperation based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and of decisions in extrajudicial cases, preclude national provisions, such as the Italian provisions contained in Article 5 sexies of Law No 89/2001, which impose on persons entitled to the payment by the Italian State of ‘fair compensation’ in respect of the unreasonable duration of legal proceedings a series of obligations which they must fulfil in order to obtain such payment, and to await the expiry of the period referred to in Article 5 sexies (5) of Law No 89/2001 without, in the meanwhile, being entitled to take any legal action for enforcement and without subsequently being able to claim damages in respect of late payment, even in cases in which the ‘fair compensation’ has been awarded in respect of the unreasonable duration of civil proceedings which have cross-border implications or which involve a matter that falls within the jurisdiction of the European Union and/or a matter in relation to which the European Union provides for the reciprocal recognition of judgments?


title: Case T-389/12: Action brought on 5 September 2012 — EDF v Commission

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/29

      Action brought on 5 September 2012 — EDF v Commission
      (Case T-389/12)
      (2012/C 331/55)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Électricité de France SA (EDF) (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras and A. Valiente Martin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul Commission decision C(2012) 4617 final of 28 June 2012 refusing to grant the applicant an extension until 31 December 2014 of the Final Investment Decision deadline provided by one of the Commitments imposed in merger proceedings (Case No COMP/M.5549 — EDF/SEGEBEL);

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         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

                              —

                              error of law and incorrect application of paragraphs 72 et seq. of the Commission Notice on remedies acceptable under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and under Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 (1).

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging

                              —

                              manifest error of assessment of the significant facts of the case.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging

                              —

                              violation of the principle of proportionality.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging

                              —

                              misuse of powers and/or violation of the principle of sound administration.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging

                              —

                              lack of motivation, since the Commission failed to provide any reason supporting its decision.

         (1)  OJ C 267 2008, p. 1


title: Case T-400/14: Order of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — Premo v OHIM — Prema Semiconductor (PREMO)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/60

         Order of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — Premo v OHIM — Prema Semiconductor (PREMO)
   (Case T-400/14) (1)

   (2016/C 098/76)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Case C-557/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 4 November 2016 — Astellas Pharma GmbH

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 4 November 2016 — Astellas Pharma GmbH
   (Case C-557/16)
   (2017/C 022/16)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Astellas Pharma GmbH

      Other parties: Helm AG, Lääkealan turvallisuus- ja kehittämiskeskus (Fimea)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 28(5) and 29(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use to be as interpreted as meaning that the competent authorities of the concerned Member State in the decentralised procedure for marketing authorisations for generic medicinal products in accordance with Article 28(3) of that directive are not themselves competent when issuing a national marketing authorisation to determine the time from which the data exclusivity period for the reference medicinal product begins to run?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is that, when issuing a national marketing authorisation, the competent authorities of a Member State are not competent to determine the time from which the period of data exclusivity of the reference medicinal product starts to run:

                           —

                           is the court of that Member State when dealing with an appeal by the holder of the marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product required to determine the time from which the period of data exclusivity starts to run, or is it subject to the same limit as the national authorities of that Member State?

                           —

                           in those circumstances, how is the national court to give effect to the right of the holder of the marketing authorisation of the reference medicinal product under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 10 of Directive 2001/83 to effective legal protection with regard to data exclusivity?

                           —

                           does the claim for effective legal protection require the national court to examine whether the original marketing authorisation granted in another Member State was issued in accordance with the rules laid down by Directive 2001/83?

      (1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).


title: Case C-536/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 24 October 2016 — DUEMMESGR SpA v Associazione Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza e Assistenza in favore dei Ragionieri e Periti Commerciali (CNPR)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 24 October 2016 — DUEMMESGR SpA v Associazione Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza e Assistenza in favore dei Ragionieri e Periti Commerciali (CNPR)
   (Case C-536/16)
   (2017/C 022/10)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: DUEMMESGR SpA

      Defendant: Associazione Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza e Assistenza in favore dei Ragionieri e Periti Commerciali (CNPR)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Although the Member States have the ability to require payment for soccorso istruttorio, a procedure whereby the tenderer is given an opportunity to remedy shortcomings in its tendering documentation, which has the effect of remedying any irregularity, is Article 38(2a) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 2006, in the version in force at the time of the tendering procedure in question …, which makes provision for the payment of a ‘pecuniary penalty’, in so far as that penalty must be fixed by the contracting authority (‘not less than 0.1 % and not more than 1 % of the value of the contract and in any event not more than EUR 50 000, the payment of which shall be guaranteed by the provisional security’), contrary to EU law in view of the excessively high amount and the predetermined nature of that penalty, which cannot be adjusted according to the specific situation to be regulated or the seriousness of the irregularity to be remedied?

               2.

               Is Article 38(2a) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 2006 (in the version in force at the time indicated above) contrary to EU law, in that that requirement to pay for soccorso istruttorio may be regarded as contrary to the principle of opening up the market to competition as widely as possible, an aim which the soccorso istruttorio mechanism is intended to achieve, the facility which the contracting authority is required to offer in that regard therefore being a logical consequence of the duties imposed on that authority by law in the light of the public interest in achieving that aim?


title: Case C-336/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen — Sweden) — Unionen v Almega Tjänsteförbunden, ISS Facility Services AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2001/23/EC — Article 3 — Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings — Collective agreements applicable to the transferee and the transferor — Additional periods of notice granted to dismissed workers — Account to be taken of the length of service with the transferor)

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/7

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen — Sweden) — Unionen v Almega Tjänsteförbunden, ISS Facility Services AB
   (Case C-336/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2001/23/EC - Article 3 - Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings - Collective agreements applicable to the transferee and the transferor - Additional periods of notice granted to dismissed workers - Account to be taken of the length of service with the transferor))
   (2017/C 168/07)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Arbetsdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Unionen

      Defendants: Almega Tjänsteförbunden,
   ISS Facility Services AB,

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3 of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the case in the main proceedings, the transferee must, when dismissing an employee more than one year after the transfer of the undertaking, include, in the calculation of that employee’s length of service, which is relevant for determining the period of notice to which that employee is entitled, the length of service which that employee acquired with the transferor.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case C-540/07: Action brought on 30 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/17

         Action brought on 30 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-540/07)
   (2008/C 37/24)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Aresu, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by keeping in force a tax system which is more onerous for dividends distributed to companies established in the other Member States and in the States Party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area compared to that applied to domestic dividends, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 56 EC and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area concerning the free movement of capital between the Member States and that between the States Party to the agreement in question, as well as its obligations under Article 33 of that agreement in relation to the freedom of establishment between the States Party to that agreement;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The European Commission refers to the Italian legislation in force in the matter, also that under the Treaty, which subjects the distribution of dividends to non-Italian companies (outgoing dividends) to tax treatment which is significantly less favourable than that applied to the distribution of dividends to Italian companies (domestic dividends).
   The European Commission submits that such legislation, which, however, the Italian Government is about to amend, is contrary to the principle of the free movement of capital, since it has a negative effect on the profits and investment decisions of non-resident shareholders in Italian companies, making it, at the same time, more difficult for the same Italian companies to raise capital abroad. It should therefore be declared to be a clear infringement of Article 56 EC, which prohibits any restriction on the free movement of capital between the Member States, and of Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement), which governs in a similar manner the same free movement between the States Party to that agreement.
   Moreover, in the European Commission's submission, such legislation may also conflict with the right of establishment as laid down by Article 31 of the EEA Agreement, since it is applicable also to controlling shareholdings in Italian companies owned by companies established in the States Party to that agreement, shareholdings for which their tax system harmonised to Community Directive 90/435/EEC (1) does not apply.
   In the course of the procedure for infringement, the European Commission has had the opportunity of examining the Italian Republic's arguments in defence justifying the legislation in question, but considers that they do not do so. Recently however the Italian Government announced its own intention to amend the said legislation by making it compliant with the Community directive. This action may accelerate such process of reform.

      (1)  OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6.


title: Case C-276/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Jiří Sabou v Finanční ředitelství pro hlavní město Prahu (Directive 77/799/EEC — Mutual assistance by the authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation — Exchange of information on request — Tax proceedings — Fundamental rights — Limit on the scope of the obligations of the requesting and the requested Member States towards the taxpayer — No obligation to inform the taxpayer of the request for assistance — No obligation to invite the taxpayer to take part in the examination of witnesses — Taxpayer’s right to challenge the information exchanged — Minimum content of the information exchanged)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/16

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Jiří Sabou v Finanční ředitelství pro hlavní město Prahu
   (Case C-276/12) (1)

   (Directive 77/799/EEC - Mutual assistance by the authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation - Exchange of information on request - Tax proceedings - Fundamental rights - Limit on the scope of the obligations of the requesting and the requested Member States towards the taxpayer - No obligation to inform the taxpayer of the request for assistance - No obligation to invite the taxpayer to take part in the examination of witnesses - Taxpayer’s right to challenge the information exchanged - Minimum content of the information exchanged)
   2013/C 367/27
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jiří Sabou

      Defendant: Finanční ředitelství pro hlavní město Prahu

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Nejvyšší správní soud — Interpretation of Articles 1, 2, 6, 7(1) and 8(1) of Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation (OJ 1977 L 336, p. 15) and Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 1) — Fundamental rights of taxpayers in tax proceedings brought against them, such as the right to be informed of a decision of the competent authority of the requesting Member State to make a request for information, to take part in formulating that request, to be informed beforehand of the examination of witnesses in the requested Member State and to take part in the examination, and to challenge the correctness of the information provided by the competent authority of that State

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               European Union law, as it results in particular from Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation and taxation of insurance premiums, as amended by Council Directive 2006/98/EC of 20 November 2006, and the fundamental right to be heard, must be interpreted as not conferring on a taxpayer of a Member State either the right to be informed of a request for assistance from that Member State addressed to another Member State, in particular in order to verify the information provided by that taxpayer in his income tax return, or the right to take part in formulating the request addressed to the requested Member State, or the right to take part in examinations of witnesses organised by the requested Member State.

               2.

               Directive 77/799, as amended by Directive 2006/98, does not govern the question of the circumstances in which the taxpayer may challenge the accuracy of the information conveyed by the requested Member State, and it does not impose any particular obligation with regard to the content of the information conveyed.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 28 September 1995 in Case T-164/94: Ferchimex SA v. Council of the European Union (Anti-dumping duty on potash - Determination of normal value - Injury - Right to a fair hearing)

text:
No C 315/ 14        1 EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25 . 11 . 95
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 28 September 1995                                                   of 5 October 1995
in Case T-164/94 : Ferchimex SA v. Council of the European            in Case T-17/95 : Spyridoulia Alexopoulou v. Commission
                              Union (')                                             of the European Communities ( l )
(Anti-dumping duty on potash — Determination ofnormal                 (Officials — Classification in grade — Article 31 (2) of the
          value — Injury — Right to a fair hearing)                                          Staff Regulations)
                           ( 95/C 315/29 )                                                      ( 95/C 315/30 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      In Case T-17/95 : Spyridoulia Alexopoulou, an official of the
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                      Brussels , represented by Constantin Nikis, of the Brussels
In Case T-164/94: Ferchimex SA, established in Antwerp                Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                      Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v.
( Belgium ), represented by Alastair Sutton, of the Bar of
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
England and Wales, and Aristotelis Kaplanidis, of the
Thessaloniki Bar, with an address for service in                      Gianluigi Valsesia and Fabrizio Minneci ) — application for
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe,               the annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of
v. Council of the European Union ( Agents : Ramon Torrent,
                                                                      5 April 1994 inasmuch as it appoints the applicant to grade
                                                                      A7, step 5 , and refuses by implication to appoint her to
Jorge Monteiro, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg Berrisch ),
                                                                      grade A6 — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ),
supported by Commission of the European Communities
( Agent : Eric White ) and Association des Producteurs                composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and D. P. M.
                                                                      Barrington and A. Saggio , Judges ; H. Jung, Registrar, has
Européens de Chlorure de Potassium ( APEP), established in
                                                                      given a judgment on 5 October 1995 , in which it:
Brussels , represented by Dietrich Ehle and Volker Schiller,
Rechtsanwälte, Cologne — application for the annulment
of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3068/92 of 23 October                1 . Annuls the decision of the Commission of 5 April 1994
 1992 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of                inasmuch as it deals with the applicant's classification in
potassium chloride originating in Belarus, Russia or Ukraine               grade.
( OJ 1992 L 308 , p. 41 ) — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
Chamber, extended composition ), composed of: K.                      2 . Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Lenaerts, President and R. Schintgen, C. P. Briet, R.
Garcίa-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio
Gonzalez, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 September             (') OJ No C 74 , 25 . 3 . 1995 .
 1995 , in which it :
 1.  Dismisses the action .
2 . Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     costs of the Council and of the Association des                                        of 11 October 1995
     Producteurs Européens de Chlorure de Potassium .                 in Joined Cases T-39/93 and T-553/93 : Michael Baltsavias
                                                                            v. Commission of the European Communities ( ] )
                                                                       (Official — Personal file — Duty to provide assistance —
 3.  Orders the Commission to bear its own costs .                                        Non-material damage)
                                                                                ( 95/C 315/31 )
 (>) OJ No C 52 , 23 . 2 . 1993 .                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       In Joined Cases T-39/93 and T-553/93 : Michael Baltsavias,
                                                                       an official of the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Francis
                                                                       Herbert and Jimena López-Menchero, of the Brussels Bar,


title: Case T-277/06: Action brought on 9 October 2006 — Omnicare v OHIM — Yamanouchi Pharma (OMNICARE)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/60

         Action brought on 9 October 2006 — Omnicare v OHIM — Yamanouchi Pharma (OMNICARE)
   (Case T-277/06)
   (2006/C 294/120)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Omnicare Inc. (Covington, USA) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

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

      Other party before the Board of Appeal: Yamanouchi Pharma GmbH (Heidelberg, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               The appeal by the appellant to the Court of First Instance be allowed;

               —

               the decision of the Second Board of Appeal case No R0446/2006-2 be annulled in its entirety;

               —

               the application for restitutio in integrum be remitted to the Board of Appeal for reconsideration; and

               —

               the Office pays to the appellant the costs incurred by it in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘OMNICARE’ for goods and services in classes 16 and 42 — application No 284 067

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Yamanouchi Pharma GmbH

      Mark or sign cited: National figurative mark ‘OMNICARE’ for services in classes 35, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Refusal of the application for restitutio in integrum and declaration that the appeal was deemed not to have been filed

      Pleas in law: Misinterpretation of Article 78(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94 in finding that an application for restitutio in integrum cannot be made if the subject matter of the said application concerns the failure to comply with the time limit set out in Article 59 of the regulation.


title: Case T-705/15: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/35

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
   (Case T-705/15) (1)

   (2016/C 410/58)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Case C-408/07: Order of the President of the Grand Chamber of the Court of 2 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Brigitte Ruf, née Elsässer, Gertrud Elsässer, née Sommer v European Central Bank (ECB), Coop Himmelblau Prix, Dreibholz & Partner ZT GmbH; intervener: the City of Frankfurt am Main

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/28

         Order of the President of the Grand Chamber of the Court of 2 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Brigitte Ruf, née Elsässer, Gertrud Elsässer, née Sommer v European Central Bank (ECB), Coop Himmelblau Prix, Dreibholz & Partner ZT GmbH; intervener: the City of Frankfurt am Main
   (Case C-408/07) (1)

   2009/C 113/52

      Language of the case: German

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case C-60/07: Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/12

         Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-60/07)
   (2007/C 69/28)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by M. Šmerdová and L. Pignataro, Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/33/EC (1) of 22 March 2004 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for blood and blood components, or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 8 February 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 91, 2004, p. 25.


               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/1

         Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Court
   (2006/C 143/04)
   At its meeting on 16 May 2006, the Court drew up the list, referred to in Article 11b(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Grand Chamber as follows:

               J.-P. Puissochet

               L. Bay Larsen

               R. Schintgen

               A. Ó Caoimh

               N. Colneric

               E. Levits

               S. von Bahr

               U. Lõhmus

               A. Tizzano

               J. Klučka

               J.-N. Cunha Rodrigues

               J. Malenovský

               R. Silva de Lapuerta

               M. Ilešič

               K. Lenaerts

               A. Borg Barthet

               K. Schiemann

               G. Arestis

               J. Makarczyk

               E. Juhász

               P. Kūris

         At its meeting on 16 May 2006, the Court drew up the lists, referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Chambers of five Judges as follows:

               J.- P. Puissochet

               A. Ó Caoimh

               S. von Bahr

               U. Lõhmus

               A. Tizzano

               J. Malenovský

               A. Borg Barthet

         At its meeting on 14 October 2003, the Court drew up the lists, referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Sixth Chamber as follows:

               J.-P. Puissochet

               S. von Bahr

               A. Tizzano

               A. Borg Barthet

               U. Lõhmus

               A. Ó Caoimh


title: Case C-40/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of 26 January 2001 in the case of Ansul B.V. and Ajax Brandbeveiliging B.V.

text:
24.3.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 95/5
Reference for a preliminary ruling form the Kilpailuneu-               Must the words ‘put to genuine use’ in Article 12(1) of
vosto by order of that tribunal of 14 December 2000 in                 Directive 89/104/EEC (1) be interpreted in the manner set out
the case of Arkkitehtuuritoimisto Riitta Korhonen Oy,                  in paragraph 3.4 above (2) and, if the answer is in the negative,
Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti Toivanen Oy and Rakennuttaja-                on the basis of which (other) criterion must the meaning of
    toimisto Vilho Tervomaa v Varkauden Taitotalo Oy                   ‘genuine use’ be determined?
                          (Case C-18/01)                               Can there be ‘genuine use’ as referred to above also where no
                                                                       new goods are traded under the trade mark but other activities
                          (2001/C 95/07)                               are engaged in as set out in subparagraphs (v) and (vi) of
                                                                       paragraph 3.1 above (3)?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Kilpailuneuvosto
(Competition Council), Finland, of 14 December 2000, which
was received at the Court Registry on 16 January 2001, for a           (1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989.
preliminary ruling in the case of Arkkitehtuuritoimisto Riitta         (2) The question whether a particular use can be regarded as ‘genuine
Korhonen Oy, Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti Toivanen Oy and                     use’ can be answered only (i) by taking into consideration all the
Rakennuttajatoimisto Vilho Tervomaa v Varkauden Taitotalo                  facts and circumstances specific to the case whereby (ii) the
Oy on the following question:                                              decisive factor is whether all the facts and circumstances specific
                                                                           to the case, when viewed in connection with one another and in
                                                                           the context of what is regarded as usual and commercially justified
Is a share company which a town owns and in which the town                 in the relevant sector of the trade, create the impression that the
exercises control to be regarded as a contracting authority                use serves to find or preserve a market for goods and services
within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Council Directive                    under that trade mark and not simply to maintain the trade mark,
92/50/EEC relating to the coordination of procedures for the               and whereby (iii) account must generally be taken, as regards
award of public service contracts (1), if the company acquires             these facts and circumstances, of the kind, extent, frequency,
design and project management services for a building project              regularity and duration of the use in conjunction with the kind of
comprising offices to be leased to undertakings?                           goods or service and the kind and size of the undertaking.
                                                                       (3) Sale of components and extinguishing compositions for fire-
As a supplementary question, the Kilpailuneuvosto enquires                 extinguishing apparatus covered by the trade mark MINIMAX to
whether it affects the decision on the point that the town’s               undertakings which maintained similar apparatus. Maintaining,
                                                                           checking, regauging, repairing and overhauling of fire-
building project endeavours to create the conditions for
                                                                           extinguishing apparatus marked with the trade mark MINIMAX,
business activity to be carried on in the town.                            using stickers bearing the words ‘Gebruiksklaar Minimax’ (Read
                                                                           for use — Minimax).
As a second supplementary question, the Kilpailuneuvosto
enquires whether it affects the decision on the point that the
offices to be built are leased to one undertaking only.
(1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
                                                                       Appeal brought on 1 February 2001 by Sandro Cognigni
                                                                       against the order made on 30 November 2000 by the
                                                                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                       (First Chamber) in Case T-314/00 Sandro Cognigni vo
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                         Commission of the European Communities
Nederlanden by order of 26 January 2001 in the case of
         Ansul B.V. and Ajax Brandbeveiliging B.V.
                                                                                (Case C-43/01 P)
                          (Case C-40/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/09)
                          (2001/C 95/08)
                                                                       An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 European Communities on 1 February 2001 by Sandro
European Communities by order of 26 January 2001 by                    Cognigni, represented by Walter Massucci, of the Fermo (AP)
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the                    Bar, having Chambers in Pedaso, 5 Via Giovanni XXIII, against
Netherlands), which was received at the Court Registry on              the order made on 30 November 2000 by the Court of First
31 January 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ansul         Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case
B.V. and Ajax Brandbeveiliging B.V. on the following questions:        T-314/00 Sandro Cognigni v Commission of the EC.


title: Case C-176/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH, Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH, Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH v Commission of the European Communities, E.ON Kernkraft GmBH, RWE Power AG, EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG, Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy GmbH, formerly Hamburgische Electricitäts-Werke AG (Appeal — Aid allegedly granted by the German authorities to nuclear power stations — Provisions for closure of power stations and disposal of radioactive waste — Inadmissibility of the action before the Court of First Instance — Absolute bar)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH, Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH, Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH v Commission of the European Communities, E.ON Kernkraft GmBH, RWE Power AG, EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG, Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy GmbH, formerly Hamburgische Electricitäts-Werke AG
   (Case C-176/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Aid allegedly granted by the German authorities to nuclear power stations - Provisions for closure of power stations and disposal of radioactive waste - Inadmissibility of the action before the Court of First Instance - Absolute bar)
   (2008/C 22/14)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellants: Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH, Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH, Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH (represented by: D. Fouquet and P. Becker, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz, Agent), E.ON Kernkraft GmBH, RWE Power AG, EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG, Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy GmbH, formerly Hamburgische Electricitäts-Werke AG (represented by: U. Karpenstein and D. Sellner, Rechtsanwälte)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 26 January 2006 in Case T-92/02 Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH and Others v Commission in which the Court dismissed the action seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2001) 3967 final of 11 December 2001 declaring that the German tax exemption scheme applied to the reserves established by nuclear power stations for the purpose of disposal of their radioactive waste and the permanent closure of their plants does not constitute State aid as referred to in Article 87(1) EC — Obligation of the Commission to initiate the inter partes procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC where there are difficulties of assessment or doubts
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 26 January 2006 in Case T-92/02 Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH and Others v Commission;

               2.

               Dismisses as inadmissible the action brought by Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH, Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH and Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2001) 3967 final of 11 December 2001 declaring that the German tax exemption scheme applied to the reserves established by the operators of nuclear power stations for the purpose of the safe disposal of their radioactive waste and the permanent closure of their plants does not constitute State aid as referred to in Article 87(1) EC;

               3.

               Orders Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH, Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH and Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH to pay the costs of the two sets of proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 131 of 3.6.2006.


title: Case C-412/01: Action brought on 17 October 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 348/20              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.12.2001
Action brought on 17 October 2001 by the Commission                       Article 36(2) of the Directive and is in breach of the general
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                  principle of transparency in that it makes it possible to
                                                                          subdivide the objective criteria for assessing bids into sub-
                                                                          categories before the envelopes are unsealed. Finally, the
                                                                          Commission claims that, by failing to notify it of the adoption
                        (Case C-412/01)                                   of DPCM No 116/97 the Italian Republic has also infringed
                                                                          Article 44(2) of the Directive.
                        (2001/C 348/35)
                                                                          (1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 October
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Michel Nolin, acting as Agent, assisted by                 Action brought on 17 October 2001 by the Commission
Massimo Moretto, avvocato.                                                of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
                                                                                (Case C-414/01)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2001/C 348/36)
—     Declare that, by including in Article 2 of Decreto del
      Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri (Decree of the
      President of the Council of Ministers — DPCM), No 116
      of 27 February 1997, by reference to Article 14 of                  An action against The Kingdom of Spam was brought
      Decreto Legislativo (Legislative Decree) No 157 of                  before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      17 March 1995, among the criteria for awarding con-                 17 October 2001 by the Commission of the European
      tracts which the awarding authorities may take into                 Communities, represented by I. Martı́nez del Peral, acting as
      consideration when determining the most economically                Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
      advantageous offer, the selection criteria listed in                of L Escobar, of the Commission Legal Service, C-254 Wagner
      Article 32 of Directive 92/50/EEC (1) and by including              Centre.
      among the criteria for awarding contracts the provision
      of quality assurance together with ‘further information as
      may be required by the awarding authorities with the                The applicant claims that the Court should:
      purpose of matching the bidder with the service under
      tender’, and by failing, furthermore, to communicate to             —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force the
      the Commission the text of DPCM No 116/97, the Italian                    laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive             to comply with Directive 97/7/EC of the European
      92/50/EEC and, in particular, Articles 23, 32, 36 and 44                  Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on
      thereof,                                                                  the protection of consumers in respect of distance
                                                                                contracts (1), or, in any event, by failing to communicate
                                                                                to the Commission the adoption of such provisions, the
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                              Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations, under
                                                                                Article 15(1) of that Directive,
                                                                          —     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission takes the view that the contested provisions               Under Article 15(1) of Directive 97/7/EC, the Kingdom of
of DPCM No 116/97 are clearly in conflict with Directive                  Spain should have adopted the measures necessary to comply
92/50/EEC, inasmuch as they provide for the application of                therewith by 4 June 2000.
assessment criteria concerning the technical ability of compet-
ing bidders additionally at the stage of determining the most
                                                                          (1) OJ 1997 L 144, p. 19.
financially advantageous offer, thereby blurring the distinction
between the selection and awarding stages. Furthermore, the
Commission is of the view that the DPCM in question infringes


title: Case C-115/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővarosí Bíróság lodged on 3 March 2010 — Bábolna Mezőgazdagasági Termelő és Fejlesztő Kereskedelmi Zrt v Mezőgazdagasági és Fejlesztő és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővarosí Bíróság lodged on 3 March 2010 — Bábolna Mezőgazdagasági Termelő és Fejlesztő Kereskedelmi Zrt v Mezőgazdagasági és Fejlesztő és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
   (Case C-115/10)
   2010/C 134/34
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővarosí Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Bábolna Mezőgazdagasági Termelő és Fejlesztő Kereskedelmi Zrt

      Defendants: Mezőgazdagasági és Fejlesztő és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

      Questions referred

               1.

               May the conditions for Community aid under the Common Agricultural Policy (EAGGF) differ from the conditions for national supplementary aid, that is to say, may other, stricter rules than are applied to aid financed by the EAGGF apply to the conditions for national supplementary aid?

               2.

               May the scope ratione personae, as regards the recipients of aid, of Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (1) and Article 10(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 (2) be interpreted as meaning that there are only two conditions for the recipients of aid: (a) the (individual) group of agricultural producers (b) whose farm is situated in the territory of the Community will be entitled to receive aid?

               3.

               May the above regulations be interpreted as meaning that an agricultural producer whose farm is in the territory of the Community but who wishes to cease activity in the future (after using the aid) is not entitled to aid?

               4.

               In the light of the above two regulations, how is the status of such a producer under national law to be interpreted?

               5.

               Does that status under national law extend to the legal status of an agricultural producer (group) undergoing any form of cessation of activity? Hungarian law provides for separate legal positions (statuses) in cases of cessation of activity (bankruptcy, liquidation or voluntary dissolution).

               6.

               May the conditions for applications for (Community) single area payments and for supplementary national aid be subject to separate rules entirely independent of one another? What is the relationship between the principles, system and objectives of both types of aid?

               7.

               May a group (person) be excluded from supplementary national aid where they otherwise meet the requirements for area aid?

               8.

               Does the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 extend, under Article 1 thereof, to supplementary national aid, bearing in mind that where the EAGGF provides finance only in part, supplementary national aid provides finance as appropriate?

               9.

               Does an agricultural producer whose farm, which functions legally and effectively, is in the territory of the Community, have a right to receive supplementary national aid?

               10.

               If national law contains specific regulations for procedures for terminating the activity of commercial companies, do those regulations have any relevance from the point of view of Community aid (and national aid linked to it)?

               11.

               Should Community legislation and national legislation on the functioning of the Common Agricultural Policy be interpreted as meaning that they have to create a complex legal system which can be interpreted uniformly and which functions on the basis of identical principles and requirements?

               12.

               Should the scope of Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 and Article 10(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 be interpreted as meaning that, from the point of view of aid, both the intention of the agricultural producer to cease activity in the future and the appropriate legal regime for that intention are wholly irrelevant?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, 5.12.1992, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 113).


title: Case C-135/06 P: Appeal brought on  10 March 2006  by Roderich Weißenfels against the judgment of the Court of First Instance delivered on  25 January 2006  in Case T-33/04 Roderich Weißenfels v European Parliament

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/13

         Appeal brought on 10 March 2006 by Roderich Weißenfels against the judgment of the Court of First Instance delivered on 25 January 2006 in Case T-33/04 Roderich Weißenfels v European Parliament
   (Case C-135/06 P)
   (2006/C 108/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Roderich Weißenfels (represented by: G. Maximini, Rechtsanwalt)
   Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               1.

               Annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 January 2006 in Case T-33/04 (Weißenfels v European Parliament) (1), notified on 31 January 2006;

               2.

               Annul the decision of the respondent of 26 June 2003, as a result of which the special aid for the severely handicapped which was awarded from another source to the appellant's son Frederik was deducted from the double child allowance granted to the appellant under Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations;

               3.

               Annul the implied decision of refusal of the respondent to pay back to the appellant, in accordance with his application of 4 June 2003, the double child allowance which had been unjustly retained in the past;

               4.

               Annul the decision of the respondent of 28 April 2004, as a result of which the special aid for the severely handicapped which was granted by another source to Frederik, the son of the appellant, was declared to be an ‘allowance of like nature’, within the meaning of Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations, to the double child allowance which had been granted to the appellant;

               5.

               Order the respondent to pay the appellant compensation (in the alternative: the statutory interest which has accrued) in respect of the harm incurred as a result of the fact that parts of his income in the form of double child allowance were unjustly retained since 1 December 1998;

               6.

               Order the respondent to pay the costs of appeal and at first instance, including the expenses incurred by the appellant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In his appeal, the appellant contends that the Court of First Instance made procedural errors as, in its disputed judgment, it did not properly consider the claims of the appellant and unlawfully limited the scope of his application. The finding of the Court of First Instance that a claim for compensation was expressed only in the wording of the reply was erroneous, as the relevant original claim in the application is, as regards its content, to be considered as a claim for compensation.
   At a formal level, the Court of First Instance did not examine the similarity of the allowances in question — as is a requirement for the application of Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations — and did not recognise this at a material level. At a formal level, there could not be any ‘allowances of like nature’, as the Luxembourg special allowance is in no way linked to the status of being employed. At a material level, the difference in purpose of the two allowances should be taken into account: whereas only the appellant himself has a claim to the allowance under Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations for the purpose of receiving it — independently of his place of residence — only the person who is entitled — thus, the son of the appellant — has a claim to the independent Luxembourg special allowance, which is for the purpose of his care, so long as he lives in Luxembourg.
   Application of Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations is therefore ruled out, as neither at a formal nor at a material level is there an allowance of like nature which is paid from a separate source, within the meaning of the Community law in this regard. The contrary view taken by the Court of First Instance therefore infringes Community law.

      (1)  OJ 2006 C 74, p. 18.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 November 2004 in Case C-338/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen): Fixtures Marketing Ltd v Svenska Spel AB (Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases — Sui generis right — Definition of investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of a database — Football fixture lists — Betting)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 9 November 2004
   in Case C-338/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen): Fixtures Marketing Ltd v Svenska Spel AB (1)

   (Directive 96/9/EC - Legal protection of databases - Sui generis right - Definition of investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of a database - Football fixture lists - Betting)
   (2005/C 6/13)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   In Case C-338/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden), by decision of 10 September 2002, received at the Court on 23 September 2002, in the proceedings between Fixtures Marketing Ltd and Svenska Spel AB — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi and M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrators, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November 2004, in which it has ruled:
   The expression ‘investment in … the obtaining … of the contents’ of a database in Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be understood to refer to the resources used to seek out existing independent materials and collect them in the database. It does not cover the resources used for the creation of materials which make up the contents of a database. In the context of drawing up a fixture list for the purpose of organising football league fixtures, therefore, it does not cover the resources used to establish the dates, times and the team pairings for the various matches in the league.

      (1)  OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.


title: Case C-183/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 18 April 2011 — Econord SpA v Comune di Solbiate and Comune di Varese

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 18 April 2011 — Econord SpA v Comune di Solbiate and Comune di Varese
   (Case C-183/11)
   2011/C 211/20
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Econord SpA

      Defendants: Comune di Solbiate and Comune di Varese

      Interested party: Aspem SpA

      Question referred

   Must the principle that the position of an individual public authority holding shares in a società strumentale [(a company set up to provide certain municipal services)] is immaterial also apply where one of the partner municipalities holds a single share in the società strumentale and the shareholders’ agreements entered into by the partner public authorities are not such as to give the shareholding municipality any effective power of control over the company, with the result that the company shareholding may be regarded merely as formal cover for a contract for the provision of services?


title: Case T-430/11: Order of the General Court of 9 September 2013 — Telefónica v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid scheme permitting tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and not ordering the recovery of the aid — Act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Lack of status as an actual recipient under the aid scheme — No obligation to repay the aid — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/22

         Order of the General Court of 9 September 2013 — Telefónica v Commission
   (Case T-430/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Aid scheme permitting tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and not ordering the recovery of the aid - Act entailing implementing measures - Lack of individual concern - Lack of status as an actual recipient under the aid scheme - No obligation to repay the aid - Inadmissibility)
   2013/C 336/45
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant Telefónica, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by J. Ruiz Calzado, M. Núñez Müller and J. Domínguez Pérez, lawyers)

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

      Re:

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

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Telefónica, SA is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case T-455/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of  25 April 2006  — Componenta v Commission (Interim measures — Application for suspension of operation — State aid — Urgency)

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/17

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 25 April 2006 — Componenta v Commission
   (Case T-455/05 R)
   (Interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - State aid - Urgency)
   (2006/C 154/45)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Componenta Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: M. Savola, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito and M. Huttunen, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: E. Bygglin, Agent)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2005) 3871 final of 20 October 2005 on State aid C 37/2004 (ex NN 51/2004) granted by the Republic of Finland to Componenta Ojy
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.