title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 September 1998 in Case C-400/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Correctionnel, Charleroi): Criminal proceedings against Jean Harpegnies (Plant protection products - National legislation requiring approval by the competent authorities - Article 30 of the EC Treaty)

text:
C 327/4                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.10.98
S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                  G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch and
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                K. M. Ioannou, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R.
17 September 1998, in which it:                                      Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September
                                                                     1998, in which it has ruled:
1. Declares that,
                                                                     1. Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991
     Ð by failing to publish a contract notice in the
                                                                          concerning the placing of plant protection products
         Official Journal of the European Communities
                                                                          on the market requires prior authorisation, granted
         both for the overall project and for each of the lots
                                                                          pursuant to either Article 4 or Article 8, to be
         relating to the construction of the premises of the
                                                                          obtained from the competent authority of each
         Vlaamse Raad, and
                                                                          Member State in which a pesticide covered by that
                                                                          directive is placed on the market.
     Ð by failing to apply the award procedures laid
         down in Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July
         1971 concerning the coordination of procedures              2. National legislation which prohibits a biocidal product
         for the award of public works contracts, as                      not previously authorised by the competent authority
         amended by Council Directive 89/440/EEC                          from being placed on the market constitutes a measure
         of 18 July 1989, and Council Directive 93/37/EEC                 having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction
         of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination                      within the meaning of Article 30 of the EC Treaty
         of procedures for the award of public works                      which is justified under Article 36 of that Treaty, even
         contracts and, more specifically, by having                      if that product has already been authorised in another
         awarded lot No 4 by negotiated procedure without                 Member State, provided that technical or chemical
         justification,                                                   analyses or laboratory tests are not unnecessarily
                                                                          required when the same analyses and tests have
     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                      already been carried out in that other Member State
     obligations under those directives and, more                         and their results are available to the competent
     specifically, under Articles 7 and 11(2) and (9) of                  authorities of the importing Member State or can, at
     Directive 93/37;                                                     their request, be made available to them.
2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                   (1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.
(1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        (Sixth Chamber)
                        (Sixth Chamber)                                                   of 17 September 1998
                     of 17 September 1998                            in Case C-412/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling
in Case C-400/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling                 from the Korkein Hallinto-oikeus): Proceedings brought
from the Tribunal Correctionnel, Charleroi): Criminal                 by Kainuun Liikenne Oy and Oy Pohjolan Liikenne Ab (1)
            proceedings against Jean Harpegnies (1)
                                                                     (Transport Ð Public service obligations Ð Application for
(Plant protection products Ð National legislation                              termination of part of a service obligation)
requiring approval by the competent authorities Ð
                                                                                (98/C 327/07)
                  Article 30 of the EC Treaty)
                          (98/C 327/06)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Finnish)
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-400/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           In Case C-412/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Correctionnel                     of the EC Treaty from the Korkein Hallinto-oikeus
(Criminal Court), Charleroi (Belgium), for a preliminary             (Supreme Administrative Court) (Finland) for a preliminary
ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that               ruling in the proceedings pending before that court brought
court against Jean Harpegnies Ð on the interpretation of             by Kainuun Liikenne Oy and Oy Pohjolan Liikenne Ab Ð
Article 30 of the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),             on the interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of
composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,                 the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States


title: Case T-362/16: Action brought on 29 June 2016 — Tillotts Pharma v EUIPO — Ferring (XENASA)

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/32

         Action brought on 29 June 2016 — Tillotts Pharma v EUIPO — Ferring (XENASA)
   (Case T-362/16)
   (2016/C 314/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tillotts Pharma AG (Rheinfelden, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferring BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘XENASA’ — Application for registration No 11 920 055

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2016 in Case R 3264/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-16/17: Action brought on 13 January 2017 — APF v Parliament

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/43

         Action brought on 13 January 2017 — APF v Parliament
   (Case T-16/17)
   (2017/C 063/56)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Alliance for Peace and Freedom (APF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Article I.4.1 of the defendant’s decision of 12 December 2016 (Number: FINS 2017 15) relating to the reduction of the pre-financing amount to 33 % of the agreed maximum amount and the order that security be provided;

               —

               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 two pleas in law, which are essentially identical with or similar to the pleas in law set out in Case T-13/17, Europa Terra Nostra v Parliament.


title: Case C-496/06: Order of the President of the Court of 21 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/23

         Order of the President of the Court of 21 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-496/06) (1)

   (2008/C 79/41)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-197/14: Action brought on 20 March 2014 — La Zaragozana/OHIM — Charles Cooper (GREEN'S)

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/19

         Action brought on 20 March 2014 — La Zaragozana/OHIM — Charles Cooper (GREEN'S)
   (Case T-197/14)
   2014/C 235/25
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: La Zaragozana, SA (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Charles Cooper Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should reject the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 January 2014 given in the case R 1284/2012-5.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Charles Cooper Ltd

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘GREEN’S’ for goods in Class 32 — Community trade mark application No 8 1 89  813

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national word mark ‘AMBAR-GREEN’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The decision of the Opposition Division was annulled

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-245/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 January 2008 — Commission v Lior and Others (Arbitration clause — Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance — Action against a European Economic Interest Grouping and its members and former members — Partial jurisdiction)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/39

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 January 2008 — Commission v Lior and Others
   (Case T-245/04) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance - Action against a European Economic Interest Grouping and its members and former members - Partial jurisdiction)
   (2008/C 64/63)
   Languages of the case: French and Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: first H. Støvlbæk, Agent, and M. Bra, lawyer, then H. Støvlbæk and M. Konstantinidis, Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Defendants: Lior GEIE (Brussels, Belgium); Lior International NV (Hoeilaart, Belgium); Deira SA (Hoeilaart); Eutec Srl (Forli, Italy); Mindshare BVBA (Sint-Martens-Latem, Belgium); Società politecnica italiana ricerche e progetti Srl (Città di Castello, Italy); RPA Spa (Perugia, Italy); Carmen eV (Straubing, Germany); (represented by: V. Marien, lawyer); University College Dublin — Energy Research Group (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: F. Herbert and L. Demeyere, lawyers); Beneport SA (Brussels); Europe Information Service SA (Brussels); Managium SPRL (Brussels) (represented by: J.-P. Brusseleers, lawyer); and Aris Hellas EPE (Kifissia, Greece) (represented by: K. Sakellariadis, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action pursuant to Article 238 EC seeking an order against all the defendants jointly to repay the amounts paid by the Community in accordance with six contracts concluded in the framework of the Thermie programme and one contract concluded in the framework of the Altener II programme.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it relates to Deira SA, Eutec Srl, Mindshare BVBA, Società politecnica italiana recherche e progetti Srl, RPA Spa, Carmen eV, University College Dublin — Energy Research Group, Beneport SA, Europe Information Service SA, Managium SPRL and Aris Hellas EPE.

               2.

               The Commission shall bear its own costs with regard to the action brought against Deira, Eutec, Mindshare, Società politecnica italiana recerche e progetti, RPA, Carmen, University College Dublin — Energy Research Group, Beneport, Europe Information Service, Managium and Aris Hellas, and pay the costs of Deira, Eutec, Mindshare, Società politecnica italiana recerche e progetti, RPA, Carmen, University College Dublin — Energy Research Group, Beneport, Europe Information Service and Managium.

               3.

               Aris Hellas shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 6.9.2003 (formerly Case C-280/03).


title: Judgment of the Court of 16 March 1999 in Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96: Kingdom of Denmark (C-289/96), Federal Republic of Germany (Case C- 293/96) and French Republic (C-299/96) v Commission of the European Communities (Council Regulation (EEC) 2081/92 - Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 - Registration of geographical indications and designations of origin - 'Feta')

text:
C 188/2                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           3.7.1999
— Sixth Chamber                                                               — shares a common origin with that product in that it has been
                                                                                manufactured by the same company or by an associated
    President: Mr Kapteyn                                                         undertaking or under licence according to the same formu-
                                                                                lation,
    Judge Mancini, Judge Hirsch, Judge Schintgen, Judge Skour-
    is, Judge Murray and Judge Ragnemalm.                                     — was manufactured using the same active ingredient, and
                                                                              — also has the same effect with due regard to differences which
                                                                                may exist in conditions relating to agriculture, plant health
(1) OJ C 299 of 26 September 1998, p. 1.                                          and environment, and in particular climatic conditions,
                                                                                relevant to the use of the product,
                                                                              that product must be able to benefit from the marketing
                                                                              authorisation already granted in the Member State of import-
                                                                              ation, unless that is precluded by considerations concerning the
                                                                              protection of human and animal health and of the environment.
                                                                         2. The competent authority of one Member State may grant
                                                                              marketing authorisation for a plant protection product importet
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         from a third country which is not already covered by marketing
                                                                              authorisation granted in accordance with the provisions of
                                                                              Directive 91/414 in another Member State, only under the
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                      conditions laid down by that directive.
                        of 11 March 1999                                 (1) JO No C 145 of 18.5.1996.
in Case C-100/96 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
Bench Division]: The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture,
                      Fisheries and Food (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Marketing authorisation — Plant protection product
imported from an EEA State or a third country — Identical
to a plant protection product already authorised by the                                           of 16 March 1999
Member State of importation — Assessment of identical
        nature — Member States’ power of assessment)                     in Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96:
                                                                         Kingdom of Denmark (C-289/96), Federal Republic of
                                                                         Germany (Case C- 293/96) and French Republic (C-
                         (1999/C 188/03)                                  299/96) v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                         (Council Regulation (EEC) 2081/92 — Commission Regu-
                   (Language of the case: English)                       lation (EC) No 1107/96 — Registration of geographical
                                                                                indications and designations of origin — ‘Feta’)
In Case C-100/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                       (1999/C 188/04)
the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice (England &
Wales) Queen’s Bench Division (United Kingdom) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                         (Language of the case: Danish, German and French)
court between The Queen and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Food, ex parte: British Agrochemicals Association Ltd, on
the interpretation of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on                                  in the European Court Reports)
the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber;                   In Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96: Kingdom
G. Hirsch, J.L. Murray (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and                    of Denmark (C-289/96) (Agent: P. Biering), Federal Republic
R. Schintgen, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; D. Louter-             of Germany (C-293/96) (Agents: E. Röder and A. Dittrich) and
man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has              French Republic (C-299/96) (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and
given a judgment on 11 March 1999, in which it has ruled:                G. Mignot) v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         [Agents: (C-289/96) J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and H. Støvlbæk,
1. Where the competent authority of a Member State finds that a          (C-293/96) J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and U. Wölker, (C-299/96)
    plant protection product imported from an EEA State in which         J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and G. Berscheid], supported by Hellenic
    it is already covered by marketing authorisation granted in          Republic [Agents: D. Papageorgopoulos (C-293/96), I. Chalkias
    accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991         (C-289/96 and C-299/96) and I. Galani-Maragkoudaki
    concerning the placing of plant protection products on the           (C-289/96), C- 293/96 and C-299/96] — application for
    market, if not identical in all respects to a product already        annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of
    authorised within the Member State of importation, at least          12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications
 ---pagebreak--- 3.7.1999                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 188/3
and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in                  and P. Jann (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, G.F. Mancini,
Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ 1996                   C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm,
L 148, p. 1) in so far as it registers the designation ‘Feta’ as a           L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges; P. Léger,
protected designation of origin — the Court, composed of                     Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Adminis-
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch and           trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 March
P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, G.F. Mancini, J.C. Moitinho de              1999, in which it has ruled:
Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnem-
alm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),
Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,                    The third case mentioned in the second sentence of the first paragraph
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 March 1999 in                   of Article 17 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction
which it:                                                                    and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters,
                                                                             as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession
1. Annuls Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June                   of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
     1996 on the registration of geographical indications and                Great Britain, and Northern Ireland, is to be interpreted as follows:
     designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17
     of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 to the extent to which           1. The contracting parties’ consent to the jurisdiction clause is
     it registered Feta as a protected designation of origin;                    presumed to exist where their conduct is consistent with a usage
                                                                                which governs the area of international trade or commerce in
2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the                  which they operate and of which they are, or ought to have been,
     costs;                                                                      aware.
3. Orders the Hellenic republic to bear its own costs.
                                                                             2. The existence of a usage, which must be determined in relation
                                                                                to the branch of trade or commerce in which the parties to the
(1) OJ No C 318 of 26.10.1996, OJ No C 336 of 9.11.1996.                         contract operate, is established where a particular course of
                                                                                conduct is generally and regularly followed by operators in that
                                                                                branch when concluding contracts of a particular type.
                                                                                It is not necessary for such a course of conduct to be established
                                                                                in specific countries or, in particular, in all the Contracting
                                                                                States.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                A specific form of publicity cannot be required in all cases.
                           of 16 March 1999
                                                                                The fact that a course of conduct amounting to a usage is
in Case C-159/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                        challenged before the courts is not sufficient to cause the conduct
the Corte Suprema di Cassazione): Trasporti Castelletti                          no longer to constitute a usage.
  Spedizioni Internazionali SpA v Hugo Trumpy SpA (1)
                                                                             3. The specific requirements covered by the expression "form which
(Brussels Convention — Article 17 — Agreement conferring                         accords" must be assessed solely in the light of the commercial
jurisdiction — Form according with usages in international                       usages of the branch of international trade or commerce
                          trade or commerce)                                     concerned, without taking into account any particular require-
                                                                                ments which national provisions might lay down.
                            (1999/C 188/05)
                                                                             4. Awareness of the usage must be assessed with respect to the
                                                                                original parties to the agreement conferring jurisdiction, their
                      (Language of the case: Italian)                            nationality being irrelevant in this regard. Awareness of the
                                                                                usage will be established when, regardless of any specific form of
                                                                                publicity, in the branch of trade or commerce in which the parties
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           operate a particular course of conduct is generally and regularly
                     in the European Court Reports)                              followed in the conclusion of a particular type of contract, so that
                                                                                it may be regarded as an established usage.
In Case C-159/97: reference to the Court under the Protocol
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of              5. The choice of court in a jurisdiction clause may be assessed only
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the                      in the light of considerations connected with the requirements
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters                         laid down in Article 17 of the Convention of 27 September
from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Supreme Court of                           1968. Considerations about the links between the court desig-
Cassation), Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                   nated and the relationship at issue, about the validity of the
pending before that court between Trasporti Castelletti Spedi-                   clause, or about the substantive rules of liability applicable before
zioni Internazionali SpA and Hugo Trumpy SpA — on the                            the chosen court are unconnected with those requirements.
interpretation of Article 17 of the Convention of 27 September
1968, cited above (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as amended by the
Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the                         (1) OJ No C 212 of 12.7.1997.
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1;
amended version of the Convention at p. 77) — the Court,
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn


title: Case C-230/99: Action brought on 15 June 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
7.8.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 226/27
Action brought on 15 June 1999 by the Commission of                          Removal from the register of Case C-10/99 (1)
 the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (1999/C 226/48)
                        (Case C-230/99)
                                                                      By order of 29 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                        (1999/C 226/46)                               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                      the register of Case C-10/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
An action against the French Republic was brought before the          from the Amtsgericht München): Peter Feiler v Karlsruher
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 June               Lebensversicherungs-AG.
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser, and Olivier
Couvert-Castéra, a national civil servant on secondment to the        (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
Legal Service, acting as Agent with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Declare that, by adopting the order of 9 November 1994                     Removal from the register of Case C-63/98 (1)
    ‘concerning rubber material and rubber articles in contact
    with foodstuffs, food products and beverages for consump-
    tion’, without expressly recognising the technical rules                                  (1999/C 226/49)
    standards and manufacturing processes which are lawfully
    followed in the other Member States, and the findings             By order of 4 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
    from the related checks and tests carried out by an               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
    inspection and supervisory body or a laboratory officially        the register of Case C-63/98: Commission of the European
    recognised in another Member State, the French Republic           Communities v Netherlands.
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 (ex
    Article 30) of the EC Treaty;
                                                                      (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
— Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The effect of the French rules referred to in the application is
to prevent the marketing in France of the products concerned                 Removal from the register of Case C-311/98 (1)
which, albeit lawfully manufactured or marketed in another
Member State, do not comply with the French legislation;
those rules therefore constitute a restriction on intra-                                      (1999/C 226/50)
Community trace. The Commission does not deny that the
provisions of the above order are designed to meet public             By order of 21 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
health requirements, but it questions whether they are pro-           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
portionate in relation to the objective pursued in the absence        the register of Case C-311/98: Commission of the European
of any provision for the mutual recognition of products which         Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
ensure an equivalent lever of protection to that sought under
the French legislation.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-292/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 226/47)                                      Removal from the register of Case C-66/98 (1)
By order of 19 April 1999 the President of the Fourth Chamber                                 (1999/C 226/51)
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-292/98:               By order of 26 May 1999 the President of the Third Chamber
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.            of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
                                                                      ordered the removal from the register of Case C-66/98:
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.                                            Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1999.


title: Case C-587/12 P: Appeal brought on 13 December 2012 by the Italian Republic against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fifth Chamber) on 27 September 2012 in Case T-257/10 Italy v Commission

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/11

         Appeal brought on 13 December 2012 by the Italian Republic against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fifth Chamber) on 27 September 2012 in Case T-257/10 Italy v Commission
   (Case C-587/12 P)
   2013/C 63/18
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012, served on 3 October 2012, in Case T-257/10 Italian Republic v Commission concerning an action seeking annulment under Article 264 TFEU of the Commission’s decision of 24 March 2010 (C(2010) 1711 final) relating to State aid No C 4/2003 (ex NN 102/2002), notified by letter of 25 March 2010 (SG Greffe (2010) D/4224), and as a consequence also annul that decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The Italian Republic puts forward four grounds in support of its appeal.
   First, it alleges infringement of Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU and of Articles 4, 6, 7, 10, 13 and 20 of Regulation (EC) 659/99. (1) The General Court erred in accepting that the Commission could, in this case, adopt a new decision without opening a fresh investigation procedure in the course of which the Italian Republic and the interested parties were given an opportunity to make known their views.
   Second, it pleads infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and of the principle of the authority of res judicata. The General Court should have annulled the Commission’s new decision in so far as it reproduced the same, incorrect, assessment which had already formed the basis of the first decision.
   Third, the appellant alleges infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and Articles 1(1)(d) and 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006. (2) The General Court erred in holding that the contested measures were not among the measures which, under that regulation, do not constitute State aid.
   Fourth, the judgment under appeal infringes Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/99 and is in breach of the principle of proportionality. The General Court erred in omitting to take note of the fact that the Commission’s decision required recovery of an advantage from which the undertaking had in actual fact never benefited.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid (OJ 2006 L 379, p, 5).


title: Case T-160/13: Action brought on 15 March 2013 — Bank Mellat v Council

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/25

         Action brought on 15 March 2013 — Bank Mellat v Council
   (Case T-160/13)
   2013/C 147/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Mellat (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Article 1(15) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 (1); and/or

               —

               Annul Article 1(15) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 in so far as it applies to the applicant; and

               —

               Declare Article 1(6) of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP (2) inapplicable to the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of this application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Financial Embargo is not a ‘necessary measure’ and so lacks any legal basis under Article 215 TFEU in that it is not rationally connected with the relevant foreign policy aim.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Financial Embargo is in any event disproportionate to the foreign policy aim allegedly pursued and accordingly lacks any legal basis under Article 215 TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Financial Embargo is contrary to the general principles of EU law and Article 215(3) TFEU in particular, it is contrary to the principles of proportionality, legal certainty, non–arbitrariness and the requirement that sanctions contain necessary legal safeguards.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Financial Embargo violates the applicant’s property rights, rights to trade and rights to free movement of capital and the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 34)

      (2)  Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58)


title: Case T-392/09: Action brought on 2 October 2009 — 1. garantovaná v Commission

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/25

         Action brought on 2 October 2009 — 1. garantovaná v Commission
   (Case T-392/09)
   2009/C 297/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: 1. garantovaná a.s. (Bratislava, Slovak Republic) (represented by: M. Powell, Solicitor, A. Sutton and G. Forwood, Barristers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA in case COMP/F/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries, in whole or in part, in so far as it is addressed to the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2 of the decision relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA in case COMP/F/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries,

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of its application, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission’s Decision C (2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009, finding the existence of a cartel in the calcium carbide and magnesium sectors, giving rise to an infringement of Article 81 EC for which the applicant was held liable jointly and severally, with the company Novácke chemické závody a.s. (“NCHZ”).
   The application is based on two broad submissions.
   First, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law and in fact in imputing NCHZ’s conduct to the applicant, both by unlawfully reversing the burden of proof onto the applicant and by failing to discharge the burden of proof itself. The applicant claims that the Commission wrongly applied the presumption applicable to parents with wholly-owned subsidiaries to the applicant, which was a majority shareholder in a company that was directly involved in a competition law infringement. In any event, the applicant contends that the Commission failed to show that the applicant actually and effectively exercised decisive influence over NCHZ during the period of the infringement.
   Second, and in the alternative, should the Court uphold the attribution of liability to the applicant, the latter seeks a reduction of the fine imposed on it, jointly and severally with NCHZ, pursuant to the Court’s unlimited jurisdiction under Article 229 EC read in conjunction with Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), on the basis that the Commission incorrectly applied the 10 % turnover limit contained in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. According to the applicant, the Commission manifestly erred in using the 2007 as the reference year for calculating the 10 % turnover limit, instead of 2008.
   In addition, the applicant claims that the Commission’s decision to depart from the general rule contained in Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 amounts to a breach of an essential procedural requirement, since the Commission had a duty to respect the applicant’s right to be heard before doing so.
   Moreover, the applicant submits that the contested decision is vitiated by Commission’s failure to state reasons for departing from the general rule of taking the preceding business year in order to calculate the 10 % turnover limit.
   In respect of the level of the fine, the applicant claims that it is disproportionate in relation to the legitimate objective pursued, namely, to ensure competition in the internal market is not distorted. According to the applicant, the level of the fine will reduce the number of competitors and reinforce the market strength of the major company, Akzo Nobel, running thus counter to the objective enshrined in Article 3 EC.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in failing to take account of its own Guidelines (2) with respect to the applicant’s ability to pay the fine. The applicant submits, in particular, that the rejection of its submissions on its inability to pay is vitiated by the fact that it is insufficiently reasoned and is manifestly unreasonable, since the Commission allegedly failed to take into account of the objective evidence that was provided to it, that imposition of the fine would irretrievably jeopardise the economic viability of the applicant and cause its assets to lose all their value.

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

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


title: Case C-127/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 25 March 2008 — Blaise Baheten Metock, Hanette Eugenie Ngo Ikeng, Christian Joel Baheten, Samuel Zion Ikeng Baheten, Hencheal Ikogho, Donna Ikogho, Roland Chinedu, Marlene Babucke Chinedu, Henry Igboanusi, Roksana Batkowska v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 25 March 2008 — Blaise Baheten Metock, Hanette Eugenie Ngo Ikeng, Christian Joel Baheten, Samuel Zion Ikeng Baheten, Hencheal Ikogho, Donna Ikogho, Roland Chinedu, Marlene Babucke Chinedu, Henry Igboanusi, Roksana Batkowska v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
   (Case C-127/08)
   (2008/C 116/34)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Ireland
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Blaise Baheten Metock, Hanette Eugenie Ngo Ikeng, Christian Joel Baheten, Samuel Zion Ikeng Baheten, Hencheal Ikogho, Donna Ikogho, Roland Chinedu, Marlene Babucke Chinedu, Henry Igboanusi, Roksana Batkowska

      Defendant: Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does Directive 2004/38/EC (1) permit a Member State to have a general requirement that a non-EU national spouse of a Union citizen must have been lawfully resident in another Member State prior to coming to the host Member State in order that he or she be entitled to benefit from the provisions of Directive 2004/38/EC.

               2.

               Does article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC include within its scope of application a non-EU national who is:

                           (i)

                           a spouse of a Union citizen who resides in the host Member State and satisfies a condition in article 7(1)(a), (b) or (c) and

                           (ii)

                           is then residing in the host Member State with the Union citizen as his/her spouse

                     irrespective of when or where their marriage took place or when or how the non-EU national entered the host Member State.

               3.

               If the answer to the preceding question is in the negative does article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC include within its scope of application a non-EU national spouse of a Union citizen who is:

                           (i)

                           a spouse of a Union citizen who resides in the host Member State and satisfies a condition in article 7(1)(a), (b) or (c); and

                           (ii)

                           resides in the host Member State with the Union citizen as his/her spouse; and

                           (iii)

                           has entered the host Member State independently of the Union citizen; and

                           (iv)

                           subsequently married the Union citizen in the host Member State.

      (1)  OJ L 158, p. 77.


title: Case T-568/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2017 — Morgese and Others v EUIPO — All Star (2 STAR) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark 2 STAR — Earlier EU figurative mark ONE STAR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2017 — Morgese and Others v EUIPO — All Star (2 STAR)
   (Case T-568/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark 2 STAR - Earlier EU figurative mark ONE STAR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 095/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Giuseppe Morgese (Barletta, Italy), Pasquale Morgese (Barletta), Felice D’Onofrio (Barletta) (represented by: D. Russo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: All Star CV (Hilversum, Netherlands) (represented by C. Sleep, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2015 (Case R 1906/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between All Star, on the one hand, and Messrs G. Morgese, P. Morgese and F. D’Onofrio, on the other hand.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Messrs Giuseppe Morgese, Pasquale Morgese and Felice D’Onofrio to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


title: Case C-77/99: Action brought on 3 March 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against 1. Oder-Plan Architektur GmbH, 2. NCC Siab Bau GmbH and 3. Esbensen Consulting Engineers

text:
5.6.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 160/3
bringing proceedings, the information sheets are still incom-          The Commission terminated the subsidy contract concluded
plete for 27,1 % of the proposed sites; the information has not        with the defendants as provided for the contract, for failure to
been transmitted with the standard form information sheet              implement the project, and is demanding partial reimburse-
EUR 15 for 4 % of the proposed sites; and no standard                  ment of the advance paid plus interest at the contractual rate.
information sheet with scientific data has been transmitted in
respect of 67,4 % of the proposed sites.
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
                                                                       Action brought on 3 March 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-78/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 160/06)
Action brought on 3 March 1999 by the Commission of
the European Communities against 1. Oder-Plan Architek-                An action against the French Republic was brought before the
tur GmbH, 2. NCC Siab Bau GmbH and 3. Esbensen                         Court of Justice of the European Communtities on 3 March
                     Consulting Engineers                              1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Christina Tufvesson, Legal Adviser, and Bernard
                                                                       Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
                         (Case C-77/99)                                for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                       Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                        (1999/C 160/05)
                                                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should:
An action against 1. Oder-Plan Architktur GmbH, 2. NCC Siab
Bau GmbH and 3. Esbensen Consulting Engineers was brought              — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                    administrative measures necessary in order to comply with
on 3 March 1999 by the Commission of the European                          European Parliament and Council Directive 95/26/EC of
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal                  29 June 1995 amending Directives 77/780/EEC and
Legal Adviser in the Legal Service of the European Commission              89/646/EEC in the field of credit institutions, Directives
and Karin Schreyer, a national civil servant seconded to the               73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC in the field of non-life
Legal Service of the Commission, with an address for service               insurance, Directives 79/267/EEC and 92/96/EEC in the
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                 field of life assurance, Directive 93/22/EEC in the field of
a Member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Wagner                    investment firms and Directive 85/611/EEC in the field of
Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                                             undertakings for collective investment in transferable
                                                                           securities (Ucits), with a view to reinforcing prudential
                                                                           supervision (1), alternatively by omitting to communicate
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                the measures necessary to comply therewith, the French
                                                                           Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                           directive,
— order the defendants jointly and severally to pay the
    European Commission 54 510 EUR plus interest in the
                                                                       — order the French Republic to pay the costs.
    amount of 20 798.70 EUR for the period from 1 January
    1993 to 15 January 1999,
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the defendants jointly and severally to pay the
    European Commission interest on the principal sum of
    54 510 EUR at the rate used by the European Monetary               The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
    Cooperation Fund plus two per cent, and                            of Article 189 and of the first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC
                                                                       Treaty is such as to oblige Member States to which directives
                                                                       are addressed to adopt the measures necessary in order to
— order the defendants jointly and severally to pay the costs          transpose those directives into their national legal order within
    of the action.                                                     the time-limit prescribed therein. The time-limit in question
                                                                       expired on 18 July 1996 but the French Republic has not
                                                                       adopted the necessary measures.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       (1) OJ L 168, 18.7.1995, p. 7.
The Court has jurisdiction on the basis of an arbitration clause
concluded in 1992.


title: Case C-147/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 25 March 2011 — Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Lucja Czop

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 25 March 2011 — Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Lucja Czop
   (Case C-147/11)
   2011/C 152/31
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

      Defendant: Lucja Czop

      Questions referred

   In circumstances where a claimant:

               (a)

               is a citizen of Poland;

               (b)

               came to the United Kingdom before her country acceded to the EU;

               (c)

               established herself in self-employment within the meaning of Article 49 TFEU (ex Article 43 TEC);

               (d)

               remained here, and continued in self-employment, following accession;

               (e)

               is no longer in self-employment; and

               (f)

               is the primary carer of a child who came to the United Kingdom and entered general education after accession and after she ceased to be established in self-employment,

         does the claimant have a right to reside in the United Kingdom on the basis that (individually or cumulatively):

               (a)

               Regulation 1612/68 (1) applies, together with the reasoning of the European Court of Justice in Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-413/99) [2002] ECR I-7091, London Borough of Harrow v Ibrahim (Case C-310/08) and Teixeira v London Borough of Lambeth (Case C-480/08);

               (b)

               there is a general principle of EU law that equates the position of workers and the self-employed;

               (c)

               it would impede or deter the freedom of establishment if the claimant did not have a right to reside?

      (1)  OJ L 257, p. 2


title: Case T-527/10: Action brought on 12 November 2010 — Google v OHIM — Giersch Ventures (GMail)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/41

         Action brought on 12 November 2010 — Google v OHIM — Giersch Ventures (GMail)
   (Case T-527/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/75
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Google, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and A. Bognár, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Giersch Ventures LLC (Los Angeles, United States)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 September 2010 in case R 342/2010-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “GMail”, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 5685136

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

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 30666860 of the word mark ‘G-mail’, registered for, among others, goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42; German trade mark registration No 30025697 of the figurative mark ‘G-mail … und die Post geht richtig ab’, for services in classes 38, 39 and 42.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred (i) in its visual comparison between the contested trade mark and the earlier opposed trade mark, (ii) in not taking into account the perception of the concerned consumer circles, (iii) in its assumption that the word elements of composite marks are always more coining than the visual elements, and disregarded case law in that respect, (iv) in its finding that the earlier word mark as a whole was not to be considered intrinsically weak, and (v) in its finding that the applicant’s arguments as regards the significance of the visual comparison over the phonetic comparison of the marks were inconclusive.


title: Case T-12/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014  — Sherwin-Williams Sweden v OHIM — Akzo Nobel Coatings International (ARTI) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community trade mark ARTI — Earlier Benelux word mark ARTITUDE and international registration of the earlier Benelux trade mark ARTITUDE — Refusal to register — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Identical or highly similar goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 — Sherwin-Williams Sweden v OHIM — Akzo Nobel Coatings International (ARTI)
   (Case T-12/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community trade mark ARTI - Earlier Benelux word mark ARTITUDE and international registration of the earlier Benelux trade mark ARTITUDE - Refusal to register - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Identical or highly similar goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 034/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sherwin-Williams Sweden AB (Märsta, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Akzo Nobel Coatings International BV (Arnhem, Netherlands)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 October 2012 (Case R 2085/2011-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Akzo Nobel Coatings International B V and Sherwin-Williams Sweden Group AB.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action.

               2)

               Orders Sherwin-Williams Sweden AB to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case T-697/14: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — MIP Metro v EUIPO — Associated Newspapers (METRO)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/61

         Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — MIP Metro v EUIPO — Associated Newspapers (METRO)
   (Case T-697/14) (1)

   (2017/C 144/87)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.


title: Case T-461/07: Action brought on 19 December 2007 — Visa Europe and Visa International Service Association v Commission

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/49

         Action brought on 19 December 2007 — Visa Europe and Visa International Service Association v Commission
   (Case T-461/07)
   (2008/C 51/91)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Visa Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and Visa International Service Association (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: S. Morris, QC, H. Davies, Barrister, A. Howard, Barrister, V. Davies, Solicitor and H. Masters, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision in its entirety; alternatively

               —

               annul Article 2 of the decision in its entirety, or in the alternative, reduce the fine there stated, as appropriate; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of their application Visa Europe and Visa International Service Association (‘Visa’) seek annulment under Article 230 EC of Commission Decision C(2007) 4471 final, dated 3 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/D1/37860 — Morgan Stanley/Visa International and Visa Europe) on one hand with regard to the finding that Visa had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA, by refusing to admit Morgan Stanley Bank International Limited (‘Morgan Stanley’) to membership of Visa Europe prior to 22 September 2006, due to the fact that it owned and operated a competing card system and, on the other hand, with regard to the imposition of a fine of EUR 10,2 million to the applicants.
   Visa raises three pleas in law in relation to the Commission's finding of infringement. In particular, it submits that the Commission's conclusion that the non-admission of Morgan Stanley to Visa membership constituted an appreciable restriction to competition falling under Article 81(1) EC is vitiated by manifest errors of law and claims that the Commission failed to establish the necessary elements in support of that conclusion.

               (a)

               First, it is submitted that the Commission applied the wrong legal and economic test for the application of the aforementioned provision, namely that there was ‘scope for further competition’ and reached, thus, the wrong factual and economic assessment regarding the alleged effects of the non-admission of Morgan Stanley. In fact, according to Visa, Morgan Stanley was not prevented from entering the relevant market (‘the UK acquiring market’).

               (b)

               Second, it is claimed that the Commission infringed an essential procedural requirement by changing its case on restrictive effect at the stage of the decision without giving Visa an opportunity to respond to the new formulation of the case.

               (c)

               Third, even if Morgan Stanley was prevented from entering the UK acquiring market, it is argued that there were no sufficient anti-competitive effects.

         In relation to the fine that has been imposed, Visa raises the following pleas in law under Article 229 EC:

               (a)

               In accordance with the application of fundamental principles of Community law to the particular circumstances of the case and the genuine uncertainty that existed as to the illegality of the non-admission of Morgan Stanley, the Commission ought not to have imposed a fine on Visa at all. In fact, Visa considers that there was no justification for the fine imposed, given that the agreement in question had been formally notified to the Commission pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 17/62 (1) and that the power to impose a fine under Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) only arose because of the Commission's serious delay in the administrative procedure.

               (b)

               In the alternative, the Commission committed, according to Visa, various errors of law and assessment regarding the level of the fine that it could lawfully impose on the applicants. On that basis, Visa contends that a fine of EUR 10,2 million was manifestly excessive and disproportionate, taking no account of the reasonable doubt as to the illegality of Visa's conduct.

         Finally, Visa claims that the Commission was only entitled to impose a fine on Visa for the period for which the evidence was established that Morgan Stanley was prevented from entering the UK acquiring market. Even if Visa's earlier refusal to admit Morgan Stanley to Visa membership could have made a difference to the conditions of competition in the relevant market, this could not have been the case beyond that period and therefore, the Commission, in line with its 1998 Fining Guidelines, should not have applied a duration multiplier.

      (1)  EEC Council Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ 13, p. 204).

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


title: Case T-453/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Zoo Sport v OHIM — K-2 (ZOOSPORT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ZOOSPORT — Earlier Community word mark ZOOT and earlier Community figurative mark SPORTS ZOOT SPORTS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Zoo Sport v OHIM — K-2 (ZOOSPORT)
   (Case T-453/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ZOOSPORT - Earlier Community word mark ZOOT and earlier Community figurative mark SPORTS ZOOT SPORTS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 352/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Zoo Sport Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Rungg, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: K-2 Corp. (Seattle, United States of America) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 August 2012 (Case R 1119/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between K-2 Corp. and Zoo Sport Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Zoo Sport Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case T-11/03: Action brought on 15 January 2003 by Mrs Elizabeth Afari against the European Central Bank

text:
22.3.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 70/27
Action brought on 15 January 2003 by Mrs Elizabeth                         —     Violation of the principle of proportionality as to the
           Afari against the European Central Bank                               penalty.
                                                                           —     Violation of the Council Directive 2000/43 of 29 June
                         (Case T-11/03)
                                                                                2000 implementing the principle of equal treament
                                                                                between persons irrespective of racial and ethnic
                         (2003/C 70/43)                                          origin (1).
                   (Language of the case: English)                         (1 ) Official Journal L 180, of 19.7.2000, p. 22.
An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 15 January 2003 by Mrs Elizabeth Afari, Frankfurt,
Germany, represented by Mr Georges Vandersanden and                        Action brought on 16 January 2003 by Nintendo Co., Ltd.
Mr Laure Levi, Lawyers.                                                    and Nintendo of Europe GmbH against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-13/03)
—     annul the disciplinary decision of the ECB of 5 November
      2002 imposing on the Appellant a written reprimand;                                             (2003/C 70/44)
—     order that the ECB pays 1 euro as compensation for the                                    (Language of the case: English)
      moral predudice;
—     order that the ECB pays the costs.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 16 January 2003 by Nintendo
                                                                           Co., Ltd., Kyoto, Japan and Nintendo of Europe GmbH,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Großostheim, Germany, represented by Mr Ian Forrester, QC,
                                                                           Mr John Pheasant, Solicitor, Mr Mark Powell, Solicitor,
The Appellant in the present case challenges the decision of               Ms Ciara Kennedy-Loest, Solicitor and Mr James Killick,
the defendant’s Administration imposing on her a disciplinary              Barrister.
measure consisting of a written reprimand. The main charges
against her were that she made allegations of racism and                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
accused members of the management of the ECB of encourag-
ing xenophobia.                                                            —     annul Article 3 of the decision to the extent that it
                                                                                imposes an unlawfully large fine on Nintendo;
She complains that at the beginning of this disciplinary                   —     set a lower fine (if any) in such amount as may appear
procedure there was a difficult relationship with a colleague                    appropriate to the Court in the exercise of its unlimited
who put her under very strong pressure, harassment and                           discretion pursuant to Article 229 EC;
discriminated against her in many ways. The conflict escalated
to a written complaint, as she unsuccessfully called the                   —     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs
attention of her management on that situation.
                                                                           —     take such other or further steps as justice may require
The Appellant invokes the following as pleas in law:
—     Violation of the duty to state reasons, of the right to good         Pleas in law and main arguments
      administration and of the obligation of due care.
                                                                           The applicants contest the decision of the Commission decision
—     Violation of the rights of defense, in so far as the burden
                                                                           C(2002) 4072 final of 30 October 2002 in Cases COMP/
      of the proof would have been illegally put on the
                                                                           35.587 PO Video games, COMP/35.706 PO Nintendo Distri-
      applicant’s shoulders and her right to be heard, as well as
                                                                           bution and COMP/36.321 Omega-Nintendo, regarding an
      the principle of impartiality, would have been ignored.
                                                                           infringement of Article 81 (1) of the EC Treaty insofar as it
                                                                           imposes an unlawfully large fine on the applicants.
—     Manifest error of appreciation in relation to the substance
      of the case. Concretely, it is submitted that the applicant
      has violated neither Article 4(1) of Conditions of Employ-           In support of their application, the applicants claim that the
      ment for Staff of the ECB, nor the ECB Code of Conduct.              Commission has infringed essential procedural requirements


title: Case F-88/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 November 2008 — Domínguez González v Commission (Staff case — Technical assistant — Plea of lack of jurisdiction — Plea of inadmissibility — Lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal)

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/40

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 November 2008 — Domínguez González v Commission
   (Case F-88/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Technical assistant - Plea of lack of jurisdiction - Plea of inadmissibility - Lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal)
   2009/C 102/59
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Juan Luís Domínguez González (Gerona, Spain) (represented by: R. Nicolazzi Angelats initially, then by R. Nicolazzi Angelats and M.-C. Oller Gil, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant because of the termination of his employment contract with ECHO following the result of the medical check up.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction as regards the action.

               2.

               The parties are to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008, p. 34


title: Case C-187/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 December 2009 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/40/EC — Air conditioning in motor vehicles — Incomplete transposition)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 December 2009 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-187/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/40/EC - Air conditioning in motor vehicles - Incomplete transposition)
   2010/C 24/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and S. Walker, Agents)

      Defendants: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have taken, within the prescribed period, the necessary provisions to comply with Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 relating to emissions from air-conditioning systems in motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC (OJ 2006 L 161, p. 12).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 relating to emissions from air-conditioning systems in motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


title: Case C-401/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 28 July 2011 — Blanka Soukupová v Ministerstvo zemědělství

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 28 July 2011 — Blanka Soukupová v Ministerstvo zemědělství
   (Case C-401/11)
   2011/C 311/31
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Blanka Soukupová

      Defendant: Ministerstvo zemědělství

      Questions referred

               1.

               May the concept of ‘normal retirement age’ at the time of transfer of a farm under Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (1) be interpreted as ‘the age required for entitlement to a retirement pension’ by a particular applicant under national legislation?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it in accordance with European Union law and the general principles of European Union law for ‘normal retirement age’ at the time of transfer of a farm to be determined differently for individual applicants depending on their sex and the number of children they have brought up?

               3.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, what criteria should the national court take into account when interpreting the concept of ‘normal retirement age’ at the time of transfer of a farm under Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80.


title: Case C-58/07: Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/11

         Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-58/07)
   (2007/C 69/26)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provision necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC (1) of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air and, in any event, by not communicating them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for adapting domestic law to Directive 2003/110/EC expired on 6 December 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 321, p. 26.


title: Case T-382/04: Action brought on 23 September 2004 by Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/37

         Action brought on 23 September 2004 by Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-382/04)
   (2005/C 6/74)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 September 2004 by Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading B.V., established in te Landsgraaf (Netherlands), represented by Hendrik Cornelis De Bie.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision REM 19/2002 of 17 June 2004 in so far as it holds the request for remission of duties unjustified;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant imports, inter alia, rice paper, which, for several years, was declared under the same CN code. However, following the adoption of Commission Regulation No 1196/97 of 27 June 1997, (1) the goods had to be declared under a different CN code. The applicant concedes that this was not done in its case. However, according to the applicant, its case is a special situation in that the Netherlands customs authorities committed several errors when carrying out their controls. The applicant points out that the Netherlands customs authorities failed to notice that the rice paper had been wrongly classified, even in the course of various controls carried out over a period of eight months. The applicant also argues that it cannot be accused of deception or obvious negligence.
   In support of its application, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 239 of Regulation No 2913/92, (2) erroneous assessment of the facts by the Commission and breach of the duty to state reasons. The applicant also alleges infringement of the principles of sound administration and equal treatment, given that the Commission reached a different conclusion in previous decisions. Finally, the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1196/97 of 27 June 1997 concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined nomenclature (OJ 1997 L 170, p. 13).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).


title: Case T-165/17: Action brought on 10 March 2017 — Emcur v EUIPO — Emcure Pharmaceuticals (EMCURE)

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/39

         Action brought on 10 March 2017 — Emcur v EUIPO — Emcure Pharmaceuticals (EMCURE)
   (Case T-165/17)
   (2017/C 129/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Emcur Gesundheitsmittel aus Bad Ems GmbH (Bad Ems, Germany) (represented by: K. Bröcker, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Bhosari, India)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘EMCURE’ — Application for registration No 12 269 049

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2016 in Case R 790/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


C 118/26              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.4.2001
        Removal from the register of Case C-8/00 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-102/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/58)                                                     (2001/C 118/61)
By order of 19 October 2000 the President of the Court of             By order of 27 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-8/00: Commission of the European          from the register of Case C-102/99: (reference for a preliminary
Communities v Ireland.                                                ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Venezia):
                                                                      Veneta Assicurazioni SpA. v Ufficio del Registro di Padova.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-331/99 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-421/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/59)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/62)
By order of 25 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 27 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-331/99: Commission of the                 Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v France.                                        from the register of Case C-421/99: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Italy.
(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-95/00 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-469/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/60)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/63)
By order of 26 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 27 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-95/00: [reference for a preliminary       Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: O’Neill          from the register of Case C-469/99: Commission of the
Incorporated v JOMO s.r.o.                                            European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.


title: Case C-79/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — SC Mora IPR SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Județeană pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Sibiu (Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 211 — Deferred payment of VAT on importation)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/20

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — SC Mora IPR SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Județeană pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Sibiu
   (Case C-79/12) (1)

   (Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 211 - Deferred payment of VAT on importation)
   2013/C 114/28
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC Mora IPR SRL

      Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Județeană pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Sibiu

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Interpretation of Article 211 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Interpretation of Articles 26(2), 28, 30 and 107 TFEU — Right of Member States to authorise deferment of VAT on importation — Whether it is permissible for national legislation to impose a condition for obtaining a payment deferment certificate, not provided for under the Directive — Later legislative amendments exempting only certain taxable persons from payment of VAT on importation — Discrimination — Breach of the prohibition on import duties

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 211 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the application of legislative rules of a Member State, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which make the deferred payment of value added tax due on imported goods conditional on obtaining a certificate that is not required under the wording of that directive, provided that the conditions for obtaining such a certificate comply with the principle of fiscal neutrality, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.


title: Case T-576/14: Order of the General Court of 15 March 2016 — Larymnis Larko v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Privatisation — Support measures for a debtor of the applicant — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/43

         Order of the General Court of 15 March 2016 — Larymnis Larko v Commission
   (Case T-576/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - State aid - Privatisation - Support measures for a debtor of the applicant - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 156/57)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Elliniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki Larymnis Larko AE (Kallithea, Greece) (represented by: V. Koulouris, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agent, and by V. Chatzopoulos, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2014) 1805 of 27 March 2014 declaring that the sale of some of the assets exploited by Larko General Mining & Metallurgical Company SA did not constitute State aid [SA. 37954 (2013/N)].

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Elliniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki Larymnis Larko AE shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.