title: Action brought on 30 August 1996 by the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-289/96)

text:
No C 318/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26 . 10 . 96
     the fiscal horsepower value of vehicles which results in a          Action brought on 30 August 1996 by the Government of
     higher such value being conferred on certain vehicles,              the Kingdom of Denmark against the Commission of the
     which consumers are therefore deterred from buying,                                     European Communities
     where all the vehicles in the highest tax categories are                                     Case C-289/96 )
     imported vehicles standing in direct competition with
     similar vehicles sold in France which are in more                                              96/C 318/07 )
     favourable tax categories ?
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
2 . Is Article 95 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as                  Communities was brought before the Court of Justice on
     precluding the simultaneous use of two sets of rules for            30 August 1996 by the Government of the Kingdom of
     establishing the fiscal horsepower value of vehicles                Denmark, represented by Peter Biering, Head of
     where the more unfavourable set is applied in particular            Department, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     to vehicles imported from other Member States which                 the Danish Embassy, 4 boulevard Royal .
     French consumers are consequently deterred from
     buying, to the advantage of similar vehicles sold in
     France ?
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — partially annul Commission Regulation ( EC )
                                                                             No 1107/96 , of 12 June 1996 on the registration of
                                                                             geographical indications and designations of origin
                                                                             under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                  Regulation ( EEC ) No 208 1 /92 ( ] ), in so far as the
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 4 July 1 996 in the                designation 'feta ' is listed in the Annex to the Regulation
 case of Kyritzer Starke GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Potsdam                        under point A ' Cheeses', ' GREECE',
                           Case C-287/96
                            ( 96/C 318/06 )                             •— order the Commission to pay the costs .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
( Federal Finance Court ) of 4 July 1996 , which was received
at the Court Registry on 26 August 1996 , for a preliminary             — The registration of ' feta ' as a protected designation of
ruling in the case of Kyritzer Starke GmbH v. Hauptzollamt                   origin is contrary to the provisions of Council
( Principal Customs Office ) Potsdam on the following                        Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 of 14 July 1992 on the
questions :                                                                  protection of geographical indications and designations
                                                                             of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs ( 2 ). The
                                                                             designation ' feta ' does not fulfil the conditions laid
1 . Does the use prescribed in Article 10 ( 1 ) in conjunction               down in the Regulation in order to be considered a
     with Article 14 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1722/93 ( 1 )            designation of origin .
     for processed goods falling within CN code 3505 10 50
     constitute a primary requirement within the meaning of
     Article 20 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC )                        Pursuant to Article 2 ( 2 ), designation of origin means the
     No 2220/85 ( 2 ), evidence of the fulfilment of which is to             name of a region, a specific place or, in exceptional cases ,
     be produced within the period prescribed by Article 28                  a country, used to describe an agricultural product or a
     ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2220/85 , so that, in any                foodstuff originating there , the quality or characteristics
     other case , security provided pursuant to Article 22 ( 1 )             of which are due to a particular geographical
     and ( 2 ) of that regulation becomes forfeit ?                          environment with its inherent natural and human
                                                                             factors and the production, processing and preparation
                                                                             of which take place there . 'Feta ' is not, however, the
2 . If the answer to question 1 is in the negative :                         name of a region, place or country . Nor does ' feta '
                                                                             originate from Greece, as a region for protection, but
     is some other prescribed period to be inferred from the                 from all over the Balkans , and its quality or
     applicable Community legislation, within which                          characteristics cannot be due to a particular
     evidence of use is to be produced in accordance with                    geographical environment.
     Article 10 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1722/93 , so that
     the security becomes wholly or partially ( to what
     extent ?) forfeit if the evidence is not produced within the            Pursuant     to   Article     2    ( 3 ), certain traditional
     prescribed period ?                                                     geographical or non-geographical names designating an
                                                                             agricultural product or a foodstuff originating in a
                                                                             region or a specific place, the quality or characteristics of
(') OJ No L 159 , 1 . 7 . 1993 , p . 112 .
(-) OJ No L 205 , 3 . 8 . 1995 , p . 5 .
                                                                             which fulfil the above conditions, are also to be
                                                                             considered designations of origin . Under that provision
                                                                             the product's origin may only be a specific place or
                                                                             region , not an entire country .
 ---pagebreak--- 26 . 10 . 96             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 318/5
      Article 3(1 ) precludes the registration of generic names .       by the Commission of the European Communities,
      In order to establish whether a name is generic,                  represented by Mr James Macdonald Flett, member of the
      particular account is to be taken of the existing situation       Legal Service, acting as agent, with an address for service in
      in the Member State in which the name originates, the             Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
      existing situation in other Member States, and the                member of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
      relevant national or Community laws . 'Feta ' has been
      produced in Denmark since 1951 . Since 1963 rules have            The Applicant claims that the Court should :
      governed its production . 'Feta' was known and
      produced in the Community before Greece's accession.              — declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
      Danish 'feta ' was exported to Greece as ' feta ' until Greek            administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      rules on ' feta ' were introduced in 1987 . A number of                  Council Directive 93/53/EEC of 24 June 1993
      other Member States including, at all events, besides                    introducing minimum Community measures for the
      Denmark, Germany, France and Finland, produce ' feta '.                  control of certain fish diseases (') and Council Directive
      Moreover, since 1975 'feta' has been covered by various                  93/54/EEC of 24 June 1993 amending Directive
      Community rules . When the Council Regulation was                        91 /67/EEC concerning the animal health conditions
      issued, ' feta' was being lawfully produced and marketed                 governing the placing on the market of aquaculture
      in many Member States .                                                  animals and products ( 2 ), Ireland has failed to fulfil its
                                                                               obligations under those Directives and under the Treaty
— The registration of 'feta' as a protected designation of                     establishing the European Community,
      origin is, moreover, contrary to the provisions in
      Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty. Under the Court's                      and
      case-law, there must be a geographical link between the
      designation and the region before a designation of origin         — order Ireland to pay the costs .
      can lawfully be protected. The region in question may
      not be an entire country and the designation must not be          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
      used to protect products indiscriminately, whatever
      their origin .                                                    Article 1 89 of the EC Treaty provides that Directives shall be
                                                                        binding, as to the result to be achieved, on each Member
— In adopting Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/86                   State to which they are addressed . Article 5 of the Treaty
      the   Commission         has  exceeded  the   limits    of its    provides that Member States shall take all appropriate
      discretionary powers .                                            measures, whether general or particular, to ensure
                                                                        fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty or
                                                                        resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
— Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 is, in respect                Community.
      of 'feta', contrary to the principle of proportionality.
      Protection of Greek feta could be achieved by less                Directives 93/53/EEC and 93/54/EEC provide that Member
      onerous means . The Commission regulation is,                     States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and
      moreover, contrary to the principle of equal treatment            administrative provisions necessary to comply with the
       because 'feta' is a generic name which should be treated         Directives not later than 1 July 1994, and that they shall
      in the same way as other generic names .                          forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
— Lastly, in adopting Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96, the                 The Commission has not received any information
       Commission has acted in breach of its duty of fairness,          concerning measures taken by Ireland to comply with the
       since it disregarded considerable opposition on the part         Directives and has received no official reply to its letter of
       of several Member States .                                       formal notice or its reasoned opinion .
                                                                         ( 1 ) OJ No L 175 , 19 . 7 . 1993 , p . 23 .
(') OJ No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 1996 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 208 , 24 . 7. 1992, p . 1 .                                ( 2 ) OJ No L 175 , 19 . 7. 1993 , p . 34 .
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
                                                                        Reutlingen by judgment of that court of 19 August 1996 in
                                                                        the criminal proceedings against Martino Grado and Shahid
Action brought on 3 September 1996 by the Commission                                                       Bashir
          of the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                                ( Case C-291/96 )
                           ( Case C-290/96
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/09 )
                             ( 96/C 318/08 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                European Communities by judgment of the Amtsgericht
Justice of the European Communities on 3 September 1996                  ( Local Court ), Reutlingen, of 19 August 1996 , which was


title: Case T-242/13: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Castell Macía v OHIM — PJ Hungary (PEPE CASTELL) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/34

         Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Castell Macía v OHIM — PJ Hungary (PEPE CASTELL)
   (Case T-242/13) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2014/C 45/58
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: José Castell Macía (Elche, Spain) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal, P. López Ronda, G. Macias Bonilla and H. Mosback, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: PJ Hungary Szolgáltató kft (PJ Hungary kft) (Budapest, Hungary)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 February 2013 (Case R 1401/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between PJ Hungary Szolgáltató kft (PJ Hungary kft) and M. José Castell Macía.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case C-123/02: Action brought on 5 April 2002 by European Parliament against Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance (RSA)

text:
C 144/18              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   15.6.2002
4.   Do the legal consequences provided for by Italian Law                 with a moisture content of over 30 % and an average
     No 89 of 24 March 2001 justify the application of                     moisture content, on entry to the processing undertaking,
     Article 21 of the Brussels Convention even if a party is at           of at least 35 % measured at most every ten days
     risk of detriment as a consequence of the possible                    compatible with Article 249(2) EC, Article 10 EC,
     excessive length of proceedings before the Italian court              Article 34.2(2) EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 603/95
     and therefore, as suggested in Question 3, it would not               of 21 February 1995 and Commission Regulation (EC)
     actually be appropriate to proceed in accordance with                 No 785/95 of 6 April 1995.
     Article 21?
                                                                      3.   Is a national provision which makes the grant of aid for
5.   Under what conditions must the court other than the                   the drying of green or fresh fodder subject to the
     court first seised refrain from applying Article 21 of the            condition that the fodder must be kept at the processing
     Brussels Convention?                                                  plant for a maximum of 24 hours before it is processed
                                                                           compatible with Article 249(2) EC, Article 10 EC,
6.   What course of action must the court follow if, in the                Article 34.2(2) EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 603/95
     circumstances described in Question 3, it is not allowed              of 21 February 1995 and Commission Regulation (EC)
     to apply Article 21 of the Brussels Convention?                       No 785/95 of 6 April 1995?
Should it be necessary in any event, even in the circumstances        4.   Is a national provision which makes the grant of aid for
described in Question 3, to proceed in accordance with                     the drying of green or fresh fodder subject to the
Article 21 of the Brussels Convention, there is no need to                 condition that the fodder must come from parcels situated
answer Questions 4, 5 and 6.                                               at a maximum distance of 100 kilometres from the
                                                                           corresponding processing plant unless, in the latter case,
                                                                           a greater distance may be justified by the use of the
                                                                           appropriate specialised transport compatible with
                                                                           Article 249(2) EC, Article 10 EC, Article 34.2(2) EC,
                                                                           Council Regulation (EC) No 603/95 of 21 February 1995
                                                                           and Commission Regulation (EC) No 785/95 of 6 April
                                                                           1995?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supre-
mo, Sala de lo Contencioso-administrativo, Sección: Cuar-
ta by order of that Court of 6 February 2002 in the case              (1) OJ L 063 of 21.3.1995, p. 1.
of Industrias de Deshidratación Agrı́cola, S.A. against              (2) OJ L 079 of 7.4.1995, p. 5.
                  Administración del Estado
                        (Case C-118/02)
                        (2002/C 144/29)
                                                                      Action brought on 5 April 2002 by European Parliament
                                                                             against Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance (RSA)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo, Sala
de lo Contencioso-administrativo, Sección: Cuarta (Supreme                                   (Case C-123/02)
Court — Chamber for contentious administrative matters,
Fourth Chamber) of 6 February 2002, received at the Court                                     (2002/C 144/30)
Registry on 29 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Industrias de Deshidratación Agrı́cola, S.A. against
Administración del Estado on the following questions:
                                                                      An action against Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance (RSA)
1.   Is a national provision which makes the grant of aid for
                                                                      was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     the drying of green or fresh fodder subject to the
                                                                      Communities on 5 April 2002 by the European Parliament,
     condition that the fodder for drying is delivered to
                                                                      represented by D. Petersheim, O. Caisou-Rousseau and
     processing undertakings chopped, and not baled compat-
                                                                      M. Ecker, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
     ible with Article 249(2) EC, Article 10 EC, the second
                                                                      Luxembourg.
     subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC, Council Regulation
     (EC) No 603/95 (1) of 21 February 1995 and Commission
     Regulation (EC) No 785/95 (2) of 6 April 1995?
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
2.   Is a national provision which makes the grant of aid for
     the drying of green or fresh fodder subject to the               1.   declare null and void the terminations of guarantee
     condition that the fodder must reach the processing plant             notified by RSA on 9 October and 6 November 2001;
 ---pagebreak--- 15.6.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 144/19
2.    order RSA to pay damages amounting to                               Action brought on 5 April 2002 by European Parliament
      EUR 40 781 286 for 2001 and to EUR 9 409 701 for                                       against AIG Europe (AIG)
      2002 to offset the expenditure incurred by the Parliament
      in respect of additional insurance cover to replace the
      guarantees wrongfully terminated by the defendant and                                       (Case C-124/02)
      all other connected expenditure, together with interest
      calculated at the legal rate of interest, it being understood                               (2002/C 144/31)
      that all accidents occurring during 2002 will be declared
      to RSA on the basis of the policies wrongfully terminated;
                                                                          An action against AIG Europe (AIG) was brought before the
3.    order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 April 2002
                                                                          by the European Parliament, represented by D. Petersheim,
                                                                          O. Caisou-Rousseau and M. Ecker, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1.    declare null and void the terminations of guarantee
This action has been brought before the Court on the basis of                   notified by AIG on 8 October and 5 November 2001;
an arbitration clause in an insurance contract covering build-
ings and contents of the European Parliament located in                   2.    order AIG to pay damages amounting to EUR 181 852,93
Luxembourg, Strasbourg, Brussels and in a number of other                       for 2001 and to EUR 44 556,84 for 2002 to offset the
towns and cities (where the European Parliament has infor-                      expenditure incurred by the Parliament in respect of
mation offices).                                                                additional insurance cover to replace the guarantees
                                                                                wrongfully terminated by the defendant and all other
                                                                                connected expenditure, together with interest calculated
                                                                                at the legal rate of interest, it being understood that all
The parties are in dispute over the validity of the termination                 accidents occurring during 2002 will be declared to AIG
concerning, on the one hand, ‘labour dispute/terrorist acts’ risk               on the basis of the policies wrongfully terminated;
cover and, on the other, the remaining guarantees (fire and
connected risks).                                                         3.    order the defendant to pay the costs.
The European Parliament takes the view that the special                   Pleas in law and main arguments
conditions of the contract replace the general conditions relied
on by the defendant. Moreover, for buildings in France,
Article 42 of the general conditions cannot justify termination           The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
with notice of less than the 6 months provided for in the                 forward in Case C-123/02.
standard guarantees. Since French legislation makes cover for
standard risks undetachable from the risk of ‘labour dispute/
terrorist attacks’, that article cannot justify termination with
notice of less than 6 months for property in France. Likewise,
since there is no provision for notice of 7 days under
Luxembourg law, which strictly forbids terminations which it
does not expressly provide for, such notice is unlawful with
respect to buildings in Luxembourg. In so far as the defendants
invoke the general conditions to claim that the risk has become           Action brought on 5 April 2002 by European Parliament
more serious for reasons outwith the control of the insured                              against HDI International (HDI)
party, the relevant terminations are tardy, since they disregard
the period of one month following notice of the event giving                                      (Case C-125/02)
rise to the aggravated circumstances.
                                                                                (2002/C 144/32)
Contractual liability for failure to perform the insurance
contract is based on the law of the Member States where the
insured property is located.                                              An action against HDI International (HDI) was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 April
                                                                          2002 by the European Parliament, represented by D. Peters-
                                                                          heim, O. Caisou-Rousseau and M. Ecker, acting as Agents, with
                                                                          an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-490/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Admissibility — Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Posting of workers — Restrictions — Contribution to the national paid-leave fund — Translation of documents — Declaration concerning the place of employment of posted workers)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-490/04) (1)

   (Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Admissibility - Article 49 EC - Freedom to provide services - Posting of workers - Restrictions - Contribution to the national paid-leave fund - Translation of documents - Declaration concerning the place of employment of posted workers)
   (2007/C 235/02)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa, G. Braun and H. Kreppel, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: W.-D. Plessing, M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr, Agents, T. Lübbig, Rechtsanwalt)
   Intervenre: French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues and O. Christmann, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 49 EC — Posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services by undertakings established on the territory of another Member State made subject to restrictions which do not apply to national undertakings — Obligation for foreign undertakings to pay contributions to the national paid-leave fund even if they are already subject to similar obligations in the State of origin and to have a large number of employment documents translated into the language of the host State — Obligation for foreign employment agencies to register with the National Employment Inspectorate every worker made available to a national customer before work commences on each individual building site.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court declares that

               1.

               In enacting a provision, such as Paragraph 3(2) of the law on posting workers (Arbeitsnehmer-Entsendegesetz) of 26 February 1996, under which foreign temporary employment agencies are required to declare, not only the placement of a worker with a user of his services in Germany, but also any change relating to the place of employment of that worker, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear two thirds of the costs and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear one third of the costs;

               4.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 19.2.2005.


title: Case C-289/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 March 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rovaniemen hallinto-oikeus (Finland)) — Länsstyrelson i Norrbottens län v Lapin liitto (Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 — Annex — Point 1.8 of Rule No 1 — Structural Funds — Eligibility of expenditure — Taking into account of overheads)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 March 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rovaniemen hallinto-oikeus (Finland)) — Länsstyrelson i Norrbottens län v Lapin liitto
   (Case C-289/05) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 - Annex - Point 1.8 of Rule No 1 - Structural Funds - Eligibility of expenditure - Taking into account of overheads)
   (2007/C 95/13)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Rovaniemen hallinto-oikeus
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Länsstyrelson i Norrbottens län

      Defendant: Lapin liitto
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rovaniemen hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Point 1.7 of Rule No 1 in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 of 28 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards eligibility of expenditure of operations co-financed by the Structural Funds (OJ 2000 L 193, p. 39) — Taking into account of overheads
   Operative part of the judgment
   Point 1.8 of Rule No 1 in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 of 28 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards eligibility of expenditure of operations co-financed by the Structural Funds, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 448/2004 of 10 March 2004, does not preclude a method of calculating overheads as eligible expenditure for the purposes of a project co-financed by the Structural Funds, on the sole ground that the method is based on a percentage or proportion, in particular, of wage costs or time worked.

      (1)  OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kammergericht, Berlin, by order of that court of 23 December 1996 in the cartel administration proceedings between 1. RWE Energie Aktiengesellschaft; 2. Stadt Nordhorn and the Bundeskartellamt (Case C-34/97)

text:
22 . 3 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 94/7
1 . Is a legal provision of a Member State whereby:                        adopted a common position (No 56/96 ) with a view to
                                                                           adopting Directive 96/.../EC of the European
     — the particulars required to be mentioned on                         Parliament and of the Council concerning common
           labelling and which are mandatory under national                rules for the internal market in electricity ( OJ No
           legislation;                                                    C 315 , 24 . 10 . 1996 , p. 18 ), mean that the competent
     — instructions for use;                                               authorities of a Member State under Article 9 ( 3 ) of
                                                                           Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962 are
     — guarantee certificates;                                             precluded on the basis of the second paragraph of
                                                                           Article 5 of the Treaty, under which the Member
     must be given at least in the language or languages of                States are to abstain from any measure which could
     the territory where the products are placed on the                    prejudice the attainment of the objectives of the
     market, with the consequence that the packaging of                    Treaty, from applying Article 85 ( 1 ) of the Treaty by
     imported products must be altered, a 'technical                       administrative order to an agreement between an
     regulation' within the meaning of Directive 83/189/                   electricity supply undertaking and a local authority,
     EEC (')?                                                              under which the local authority grants to the
                                                                           electricity supply undertaking, for consideration, the
2 . ( a ) Where specific EC rules exist for products                       exclusive right to use the public roads in its area for
           concerning the particulars which must appear on                 the purpose of installation and operation of the mains
           the product, can a Member State require imported                necessary for the direct supply of electricity to end
           products to carry other information in the                      users and agrees not to undertake the public supply of
           language of the linguistic area in which the                    electricity, or cause it to be undertaken, in the area
           products are sold, or in a language readily                     covered by the concession (a concession agreement)?
           understood by the consumer ?
     ( b ) If the answer to Question ( a ) is in the affirmative,      2 . If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
           may such a requirement be made of all
                                                                           Do the competent authorities of a Member State under
           information on packaging or only of certain
           information and, if so, which ?                                 Article 9 ( 3 ) of Regulation No 17, by applying
                                                                           Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty to a concession
     (c ) In respect of products for which there are no                    agreement in the terms described in Question 1
           specific EC rules, may a Member State require all               between an electricity supply undertaking in that State
           or certain ( and if so which ) information on the               and a local authority, when, in other Member States,
           imported products to be given in the language of                such undertakings have sales areas protected by
           the linguistic territory in which the products are              contract or de facto from competition or there are
           sold, or in a language readily understood by the                statutory monopolies over electricity supply, infringe
           consumer ?                                                      the obligation on the Member States which follows
                                                                           from the second paragraph of Article 5 in conjunction
(') OJ No L 109 , 20. 4 . 1983 , p . 8 .                                   with Article 3 ( g) of the EC Treaty to abstain from
                                                                           any measure which may jeopardize the Community
                                                                           objective of establishing a system ensuring that
                                                                           competition in the internal market is not distorted ?
                                                                       3 . If Question 2 is answered in the negative :
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kammergericht,
Berlin, by order of that court of 23 December 1996 in                      Is Article 9 ( 3 ) of Regulation No 17, under which the
the cartel administration proceedings between 1 . RWE                      authorities of the Member States remain competent to
Energie Aktiengesellschaft; 2. Stadt Nordhorn and the                      apply Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty as long as the
                         Bundeskartellamt                                  Commission has not initiated any procedure, unlawful
                          ( Case C-34/97)                                  on the ground that Article 85 ( 1 ) ( prohibition ) and
                                                                           Article 85 ( 3 ) ( exemption ) form an indivisible whole
                            ( 97/C 94/15 )                                 for applying the law but the national authorities are
                                                                           not granted, in addition to the competence to prohibit,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                            the power to exempt, which is instead reserved
of the European Communities by order of the                                exclusively to the Commission ( Article 9 ( 1 ) of
Kammergericht, Berlin, — Kartellsenat ( Cartel Chamber                     Regulation No 17)?
of the Berlin Court of Appeal ) of 23 December 1996 ,
received at the Court Registry on 24 January 1997, for a               4 . If Question 3 is answered in the negative :
preliminary ruling in the cartel administration proceedings
between 1 . RWE Energie Aktiengesellschaft; 2 . Stadt                      ( a ) Are the competent authorities of a Member State
Nordhorn ( Municipality of Nordhorn ) and the                                    under Article 9 ( 3 ) of Regulation No 17 precluded
Bundeskartellamt ( Federal Cartel Office ) on the following                      from applying Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty to
questions :                                                                      an agreement if that agreement has been duly
                                                                                notified to the European Commission for
1 . Does the fact that the European Commission is                                exemption, the Commission has refused to initiate
     seeking to complete the internal market in the                              a procedure and the person who notified the
     electricity sector by legislation, and that as a result the                 agreement challenges that refusal by bringing an
     Council of the European Union has in the interim                            action for a declaration of failure to act, and the
 ---pagebreak--- No C 94/8                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22 . 3 . 97
            agreement is of a type for which no precedents                         of a secure and reasonably-priced energy supply, to
            regarding whether it may be exempted are to be                         special control to prevent abuse with regard to
            found in either the practice of the Commission or                      pricing and terms of business ?
            the case-law of the Community judicature ?
                                                                                If the provisions of German law on the energy
     ( b ) If, in the circumstances described in ( a ), the action                 industry cannot provide support, are there other
            for a declaration of failure to act is unsuccessful,                   considerations which justify regarding those supply
            are the national authorities nevertheless precluded                    undertakings as entrusted undertakings within the
            from applying Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty                        meaning of Article 90 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty and, if
            because the agreement is of a type whose                               so, what are they ?
            exemption has not as yet been dealt with at
            Community level ?                                                ( b ) If the electricity supply undertakings referred to
                                                                                are entrusted undertakings within the meaning of
                                                                                Article 90 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty:
5 . If parts ( a ) and ( b ) of Question 4 are answered in the
     negative :                                                                    What are the criteria for interpretation of the
                                                                                further requirements under Article 90 ( 2 ), that is
     Does a German municipal authority act as an                                   to say does the application of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the
     undertaking within the meaning of Article 85 ( 1 ) of                         EC Treaty to a concession agreement obstruct the
    the EC Treaty if it enters into a concession agreement                         performance, in law or in fact, of the particular
    with an electricity supply undertaking operating in                            tasks assigned to them and, if so, does the
     Germany, under which it grants to that undertaking,                           exemption from the rules on competition
    in return for a concession fee calculated on the basis                         contained in the EC Treaty affect the development
    of electricity sales in the area covered by the                                of trade to such an extent as is contrary to the
    concession, the exclusive right to use the public roads                        interests of the Community ?
    in the authority's area for the purposes of installation
    and operation of the mains necessary for the direct
    supply of electricity to end users and itself agrees not
    to undertake the public supply of electricity, or cause
    it to be undertaken, in the area covered by the
    concession ?                                                       Action brought on 24 January 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the French Republic
6 . If Question 5 is answered in the affirmative :                                                  Case C-35/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/ 16 )
    If the provision granting exclusive rights contained in
    a concession agreement with a local authority, as at               An action against the French Republic was brought before
    issue here, is found to be necessary in order to enable            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    the holder of the concession to undertake his supply               24 January 1997 by the Commission of the European
    operations, can that mean that there is no restriction             Communities, represented by Pieter Jan Kuyper and Pieter
    on competition within the meaning of Article 85 ( 1 ) of           Van Nuffel, acting as Agents, with an address for service
    the EC Treaty, or may that circumstance be taken into              in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
    account only when applying Article 90 (2 ) or                      Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty ?
                                                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims
7. If Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty does apply:                    that the Court should :
    ( a ) Are the electricity supply undertakings operating in         1 . declare that, by excluding frontier workers residing in
           Germany which supply private and trade end users                 Belgium from qualifying for supplementary retirement
           undertakings entrusted with the operation of                     pension points after being placed in early retirement,
           services of general economic interest within the                 the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
           meaning of Article 90 (2 ) of the EC Treaty, on the              under Article 48 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of
           grounds that, in the interests of the secure and                 Regulation ( EEC) No 1612/68 of 16 October 1968 on
           reasonably-priced supply of energy to consumers                  freedom       of   movement       for    workers within    the
           under the German Energiewirtschaftsgesetz ( Law                  Community ( J );
           on the Energy Industry 'EnWG'), they are subject
           to a series of special provisions, that is to say they      2 . order the French Republic to pay the costs .
           need authorization from the competent energy
           supervisory authority (paragraph 5 of the EnWG),            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
           are required under paragraph 6 of the EnWG to
           supply every person in the area covered by the              Infringement of Article 48 (2 ) of the EC Treaty and
          concession in accordance with published general              Article 7 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 , Article 48 of
          conditions and price tariffs and, lastly, under              the EC Treaty and, in particular, Article 7 ( 1 ) of
          paragraph 103 ( 5 ) of the Gesetz gegen Wettbe              Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 prohibit discrimination
          werbsbeschrankungen ( Law Against Restriction on             against migrant workers in respect of conditions of
           Competition ), are subject, likewise in the interests       employment, in particular as regards remuneration and


title: Case C-456/15: Order of the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — BASF SE v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Preliminary reference — Article 99 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading in the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a(5) — Method for allocating allowances — Free allocation of allowances — Method for calculating the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor — Decision 2011/278/EU — Article 15(3) — Decision 2013/448/EU — Article 4 — Annex II — Validity)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/13

         Order of the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — BASF SE v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-456/15) (1)

   ((Preliminary reference - Article 99 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading in the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a(5) - Method for allocating allowances - Free allocation of allowances - Method for calculating the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor - Decision 2011/278/EU - Article 15(3) - Decision 2013/448/EU - Article 4 - Annex II - Validity))
   (2016/C 343/20)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: BASF SE

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Examination of the first and second questions has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Article 15(3) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council inasmuch as that provision excludes the taking into account of the emissions of electricity generators for the purpose of determining the maximum annual amount of allowances.

               2.

               Article 4 of, and Annex II to, Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council are invalid.

               3.

               The effects of the declaration of invalidity of Article 4 of, and Annex II to, Decision 2013/448 shall be limited in time in such a way, first, that that declaration shall take effect only at the end of a period of ten months from the date of delivery of the judgment of 28 April 2016, Borealis Polyolefine and Others (C-191/14, C–192/14, C–295/14, C–389/14 and C–391/14 to C–393/14, EU:C:2016:311), in order to allow the European Commission to proceed with the adoption of the necessary measures and, secondly, that the measures adopted up to that point on the basis of the provisions declared invalid cannot be brought into question.

      (1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015


title: Case C-448/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Paris by judgment of that court of  18 November 2005  in Vestel France SA v Administration des Douanes et Droits Indirects

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Paris by judgment of that court of 18 November 2005 in Vestel France SA v Administration des Douanes et Droits Indirects
   (Case C-448/05)
   (2006/C 48/32)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) of 18 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 16 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Vestel France SA and Administration des Douanes et Droits Indirects on the following question:
   ‘Is Annex 11 to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 (1) invalid as being contrary to Article 24 of Council Regulation No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2) in that it has the result that a television receiver manufactured in Turkey in the circumstances described in the proceedings is held to be of Chinese origin?’

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 253, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ L 302, p. 1.


title: Case T-243/11: Order of the General Court of 9 November 2011 — Glaxo Group v OHIM — Farmodiética (ADVANCE) (Community trade mark — Applicant represented by a lawyer who is a not a third person — Inadmissibility)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/17

         Order of the General Court of 9 November 2011 — Glaxo Group v OHIM — Farmodiética (ADVANCE)
   (Case T-243/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Applicant represented by a lawyer who is a not a third person - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 6/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Greenford, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Benito and C. Mansell, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Farmodiética — Cosmética, Dietética e Produtos Farmacêuticos, Lda (Estarda de S. Marcos, Portugal)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 February 2011 (Case R 665/2010-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Farmodiética — Cosmética, Dietética e Produtos Farmacêuticos, Lda and Glaxo Group Ltd.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Glaxo Group Ltd shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.


title: Case T-557/08: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — mPAY24 GmbH v OHIM — Ultra (M PAY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark M PAY — Earlier Community and national word marks MPAY24 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — mPAY24 GmbH v OHIM — Ultra (M PAY)
   (Case T-557/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark M PAY - Earlier Community and national word marks MPAY24 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 221/66
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: mPAY24 GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H-G. Zeiner, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ultra d.o.o. Proizvodnja elektronskih naprav (Zagorje ob Savi, Slovenia)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2008 (Case R 221/2007-1) relating to opposition proceedings between mPAY24 GmbH and Ultra d.o.o. Proizvodnja elektronskih naprav.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 September 2008 (Case R 221/2007-1) in so far as that decision dismissed the opposition brought by mPAY24 GmbH;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) 15 July 2004 in Case C-239/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel, Hasselt): Douwe Egberts NV v Westrom Pharma NV and Others (Approximation of laws — Interpretation of Article 28 EC and of Directives 1999/4/EC and 2000/13/EC — Validity of Directive 1999/4/EC — Labelling and advertising of foodstuffs — Prohibitions of references to health)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   15 July 2004
   in Case C-239/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel, Hasselt): Douwe Egberts NV v Westrom Pharma NV and Others (1)

   (Approximation of laws - Interpretation of Article 28 EC and of Directives 1999/4/EC and 2000/13/EC - Validity of Directive 1999/4/EC - Labelling and advertising of foodstuffs - Prohibitions of references to health)
   (2004/C 228/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-239/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Rechtbank van Koophandel, Hasselt (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Douwe Egberts NV and Westrom Pharma NV, Christophe Souranis, carrying on business under the commerical name of ‘Etablissements FICS’, and between Douwe Egberts NV and FICS-World BVBA — on the interpretation of Article 28 EC, on the interpretation and validity of Article 2 of Directive 1999/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 February 1999 relating to coffee extracts and chicory extracts (OJ 1999 L 66, p. 26), and on the interpretation of Article 18 of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Second Chamber, J-.P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1)

               Article 2 of Directive 1999/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 February 1999 relating to coffee extracts and chicory extracts must be interpreted as meaning that, when products mentioned in the annex to that directive are marketed, other names, such as invented or trade names, are not precluded from being used alongside the product names.

               2)

               Article 18(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue, which prohibits references to ‘slimming’ and to ‘medical recommendations, attestations, declarations or statements of approval’ in the labelling and presentation of foodstuffs.

               3)

               Articles 28 EC and 30 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which prohibits references in the advertising of foodstuffs imported from other Member States to ‘slimming’ and to ‘medical recommendations, attestations, declarations or statements of approval’.

      (1)  OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.


title: Case T-22/10: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2011 — Esprit International v OHIM — Marc O’Polo International (Representation of a letter on a pocket) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark consisting of the representation of a letter on a pocket — Earlier national figurative mark representing a letter — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2011 — Esprit International v OHIM — Marc O’Polo International (Representation of a letter on a pocket)
   (Case T-22/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark consisting of the representation of a letter on a pocket - Earlier national figurative mark representing a letter - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 370/38
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Esprit International LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Treis and E.-M. Strobel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially, S. Schäffner, and subsequently, G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Marc O’Polo International GmbH (Stephanskirchen, Germany) (represented by: A. Gaul, V. Spitz, T. Golda and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2009 (Case R 1666/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Marc O’Polo International GmbH and Esprit International LP.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Esprit International LP to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 April 2005 in Case C-243/04 P: Zoé Gaki-Kakouri v Court of Justice of the European Communities (Appeal — System of payment for members and former members of the Court — Rights of a woman divorced from a former member of the Court who is deceased)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 14 April 2005
   in Case C-243/04 P: Zoé Gaki-Kakouri v Court of Justice of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - System of payment for members and former members of the Court - Rights of a woman divorced from a former member of the Court who is deceased)
   (2005/C 132/22)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-243/04 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, lodged on 9 June 2004, by Zoé Gaki-Kakouri, residing in Athens (Greece), (lawyer: H. Tagaras), the other party to the proceedings being the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Agent: M. Schauss) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr and J. Malenovský, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Mrs Gaki-Kakouri to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 24.07.2004.


title: Case T-826/16: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2017 — Casasnovas Bernad v Commission

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/35

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2017 — Casasnovas Bernad v Commission
   (Case T-826/16) (1)

   (2017/C 269/48)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case C-188/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, Republic of Poland) — Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Białymstoku v Profaktor Kulesza, Frankowski, Jóźwiak, Orłowski spółka jawna w Białymstoku, formerly Profaktor Kulesza, Frankowski, Trzaska spółka jawna w Białymstoku (Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Right to deduct — Reduction of the extent of the right to deduct in the event of breach of the obligation to use a cash register)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, Republic of Poland) — Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Białymstoku v Profaktor Kulesza, Frankowski, Jóźwiak, Orłowski spółka jawna w Białymstoku, formerly Profaktor Kulesza, Frankowski, Trzaska spółka jawna w Białymstoku
   (Case C-188/09) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Right to deduct - Reduction of the extent of the right to deduct in the event of breach of the obligation to use a cash register)
   2010/C 246/11
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Białymstoku

      Defendants: Profaktor Kulesza, Frankowski, Jóźwiak, Orłowski spółka jawna w Białymstoku, formerly Profaktor Kulesza, Frankowski, Trzaska spółka jawna w Białymstoku

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of the first and second paragraphs of Article 2 of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 14), in conjunction with Articles 2, 10(1) and (2), 17(1) and (2), 27(1) and 33(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Compatibility with those provisions of national legislation providing for the mandatory use of a cash register for sales to non-taxable persons effected by taxable persons for VAT purposes and under which breach of that obligation is penalised by forfeiture of the right to deduct input tax in the amount of 30 %

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The common system of value added tax, as defined in Article 2(1) and (2) of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes and in Articles 2, 10(1) and (2) and 17(1) and (2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2004/7/EC of 20 January 2004, does not preclude a Member State from imposing a temporary restriction on the extent of the right of taxable persons who have not complied with a formal requirement to keep accounting records of their sales to deduct input tax paid, on condition that the sanction thus provided for complies with the principle of proportionality.

               2.

               Provisions such as those of Article 111(1) and (2) of the Law on the Tax on Goods and Services (ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług) of 11 March 2004 are not ‘special measures for derogation’ intended to prevent certain types of tax evasion or avoidance within the meaning of Article 27(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2004/7.

               3.

               Article 33 of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2004/7, does not preclude the maintenance of provisions such as those of Article 111(1) and (2) of the Law on the Tax on Goods and Services of 11 March 2004.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 26 April 1995, in the case of The Queen against the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte: B. L. Lay and The Queen against the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte: D. G. Gage and D. J. Gage (Case C-165/95)

text:
 No C 189/ 12            I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 7 . 95
Reference for a preliminary ruling by judgment of the                     Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 26 April 1995 , which
Supremo Tribunal Administrative of 25 January 1995 in                     was received at the Court Registry on 30 May 1995 , for a
the case of Fâbrica de Queijo ERU Portuguesa, Lda against                 preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against the
                        the Alfândega de Lisboa                           Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte: B. L.
                            ( Case C-164/95 )                             Lay and The Queen against the Ministry of Agriculture
                                                                          Fisheries and Food, ex parte: D. G. Gage and D. J. Gage, on
                               ( 95/C 189/23 )                            the following questions :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Supremo Tribunal                     1 . In determining a part transferee's entitlement to a
Administrative ( Supreme Administrative Court) of                              reference quantity under Articles 1 (2 ) and 2 of Council
25 January 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry                     Regulation ( EEC ) No 2055/93 of 19 July 1993
on 29 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                       allocating a special reference quantity to certain
Fâbrica de Queijo ERU Portuguesa, Lda against Alfândega                        producers of milk and milk products i 1 ) must a Member
de Lisboa ( Lisbon Customs Administration ) on the                             State having regard to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2055/93
following questions :                                                          and the general principles of Community law on
                                                                               legitimate expectation, proportionality and the respect
 1 . Having regard to Commission Regulation ( EEC )                            for property apportion the reference quantity between
       No 316/91 of 7 February 1991 (*) should the said                        transferor and - part transferee by ascertaining what
       cheese ( 2 ) be classified under tariff heading 0406 20 90 ,            proportion of the holding was used for milk production
       as 'grated or powdered cheese, of all kinds', or under                  at the time the transferor entered into the non-marketing
       tariff heading 0406 90 11 as 'other cheese , for                        undertaking and then apportioning the reference
       processing'?                                                            quantity between the transferor and transferee in
                                                                               proportion to the percentage of land used for milk
2 . Is the said Regulation interpretative and therefore                        production transferred to the part transferee ?
       applicable retroactively to the import of the said
       cheese ?
                                                                          2 . If the answer to question 1 is in the negàtive, are
                                                                               Articles 1 (2 ) and 2 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2055/93
3 . In the event of either of the foregoing questions being                    invalid as contravening the general principles of
       answered in the negative, is account to be taken in this                Community law in particular those as to legitimate
       case of the Explanatory Notes to the combined                           expectation, proportionality and the respect for
       nomenclature of the European Communities in the                         property ?
       version referred to in Official Journal of the European
       Communities No C 263 of 18 October 1990, page 110,
       or of the previous Explanatory Notes ?                             3 . If the answer to questions 1 and 2 are in the negative, in
                                                                               determining a part transferee's entitlement to a reference
4 . In either case, under which of the two tariff headings                     quantity under Articles 1 ( 2 ) and 2 of Regulation ( EEC )
       mentioned above is the said cheese to be classified ?                   No 2055/93 is a Member State entitled to apportion the
                                                                               reference quantity between transferor and part
0 ) OJ No L 37, 9 . 2 . 1991 , p . 25 .
                                                                               transferee in proportion to that part of the transferor's
( 2 ) Cheese coming from a Community country, described by the                 holding transferred to the transferee ?
      exporter as grated cheese, which had been ground and subjected
      to an industrial process in which oxygen was replaced by an
                                                                          (!) OJ No L 187, 29 . 7. 1993 , p . 8 .
      injected nitrogen/002 solution, in order to enhance its
      preservation, and then packaged and compacted in plastic bags,
      each containing about 15 kgs , with a high moisture content,
      having the appearance of a compact mass or paste, which, after
      unpacking and exposure to the atmosphere breaks down into
      irregular granules.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
                                                                         Administratif, Amiens (Third Chamber), by judgment
                                                                         of that court of 22 May 1995 in the case of Société
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                  Sucrière Agricole de Maizy and Société Sucrière de
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of                    Berneuil-sur-Aisne v. Directeur Régional des Impôts
26 April 1995 , in the case of The Queen against the Ministry
of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte: B. L. Lay and                                        (Case C-172/95 )
The Queen against the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and                                        ( 95/C 189/25 )
           Food, ex parte: D. G. Gage and D. J. Gage
                             Case C-165/95 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                              ( 95/C 189/24 )                            European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
                                                                         Administratif (Administrative Court), Amiens (Third
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Chamber), of 22 May 1995 , which was received at the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                    Court Registry on 6 June 1 995 .


title: Case T-404/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 21 September 2009 — Ryanair v Commission

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/82

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 21 September 2009 — Ryanair v Commission
   (Case T-404/07) (1)

   2009/C 267/147

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.


title: Case T-28/08: Action brought on 14 January 2008 — Mars v OHIM — Ludwig Schokolade (three dimensional mark representing a chocolate bar)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/31

         Action brought on 14 January 2008 — Mars v OHIM — Ludwig Schokolade (three dimensional mark representing a chocolate bar)
   (Case T-28/08)
   (2008/C 92/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Mars, Inc. (McLean, United States) (represented by: A. Bryson, Barrister, and G. Mills, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ludwig Schokolade GmbH & Co. KG (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 October 2007;

               —

               order that OHIM bears its own and pays the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: A three-dimensional mark representing a chocolate bar for goods in classes 5, 29 and 30 — Community trade mark No 818 864

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Ludwig Schokolade GmbH & Co. KG

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Cancellation Division's decision and declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (3), 51(2), 73 and 74(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as:

               —

               the Board of Appeal ought to have concluded that the shape in issue was a significant departure from the norms and customs of the relevant sector;

               —

               the Board of Appeal required proof that the mark had acquired distinctiveness in every relevant Member State on a country by country basis and not based on whether it had acquired distinctiveness in a substantial part of the Community market for chocolate bars;

               —

               the Board of Appeal relied, in the contested decision, on a point which had not previously been raised either by the Office, or by Ludwig Schokolade.


title: Case T-395/16: Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Windfinder R&L v EUIPO (Windfinder)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/41

         Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Windfinder R&L v EUIPO (Windfinder)
   (Case T-395/16)
   (2016/C 343/55)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Windfinder R&L GmbH & Co. KG (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: B. Schneider, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the procedure before EUIPO

      Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Windfinder’ — Application No 13 350 467

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2016 in Case R 1206/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               amend the contested decision to the extent that EU trade mark application No 13 350 467 is registered as applied for;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-116/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de Paris (13th Chamber) in the case of Ministère Public v Claude Laguillaumie

text:
10.6.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 163/13
6. Should the reply to Question 4 be in the negative:                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’Appel
                                                                        de Paris (13th Chamber) in the case of Ministère Public v
    In order to comply with the obligation of cooperation and                                  Claude Laguillaumie
    solidarity incumbent under Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now
    Article 10 EC) on national authorities, in particular the                                    (Case C-116/00)
    courts, and with the principle of effectiveness, must
    application of national rules of substantive or procedural
    law curtailing the ability to assert claims which are well                                   (2000/C 163/22)
    founded under Community law, such as in the present
    case a claim founded on State liability, be deferred pending
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    full elucidation of the substance of the claim at Community
                                                                        European Communities by request received at the Court
    law, if necessary following a reference to the Court of
                                                                        Registry on 27 March 2000 from the Cour d’Appel de Paris
    Justice for a preliminary ruling?
                                                                        (13th Chamber) for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                        Ministère Public (Public Prosecutor) v Claude Laguillaumie.
                                                                        The Cour d’Appel de Paris (13th Chamber) asks the Court of
                                                                        Justice to rule on the compatibility of the decree of 1 April
                                                                        1992 and the ministerial decrees of 12 November 1992 and
                                                                        30 August 1996 authorising Eco Emballage SA and granting
                                                                        it exclusive rights in French territory to the reclamation of all
                                                                        products other than glass and medicines, with the principles
                                                                        laid down in Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome (now Article 81
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
                                                                        EC), Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome (now Article 82
Münster by order of 23 February 2000 in the case of
                                                                        EC), Directive 91/156/EEC (1) of 18 March 1991, Directive
Andreas Hoves Internationaler Transport-Service S.à.r.l.
                                                                        83/189/EEC (2) of 28 March 1983, Articles 30 and 36 of the
                      v Finanzamt Borken
                                                                        Treaty of Rome (now, after amendment, Articles 28 and 30
                                                                        EC) and Directive 94/62/EC (3) of 20 December 1994.
                         (Case C-115/00)
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending
                         (2000/C 163/21)                                    Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).
                                                                        (2) Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a
                                                                            procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical
                                                                            standards and regulations (OJ 1983 L 109, p. 8).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        (3) European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of
European Communities by order of 23 February 2000 by the                    20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994
Finanzgericht Münster (Finance Court, Münster), which was                   L 365, p. 10).
received at the Court Registry on 27 March 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Andreas Hoves Internationaler
Transport-Service S.à.r.l. v Finanzamt Borken on the following
questions:
1. Does Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3118/93
    of 25 October 1993 (OJ 1993 L 279, p. 1) preclude
    national rules which result in motor vehicle tax being
    charged for the use of commercial goods vehicles which
    are registered in another Member State of the European
    Union, for which a cabotage authorisation has been issued
                                                                        Action brought on 27 March 2000 by the Commission of
    in that Member State, which carry out cabotage operations
                                                                                the European Communities against Ireland
    in the Federal Republic of Germany and which have their
    regular base there?
                                                                                (Case C-117/00)
2. Does Article 5 of Council Directive 93/89/EEC of
    25 October 1993 (OJ 1993 L 279, p. 32), in cases like that                                   (2000/C 163/23)
    mentioned in Question 1, preclude national rules such as
    the second half of the second sentence of Paragraph 1(1)(2)
    of the Kraftfahrzeugsteuergesetz (KraftStG, Law on Motor            An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
    Vehicle Tax) in conjunction with Paragraph 1(1)(3) of the           Justice of the European Communities on 27 March 2000 by
    KraftStG?                                                           the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                        by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as
                                                                        agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
                                                                        Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
                                                                        Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.


title: Case C-91/10: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Breda (Netherlands)) — VAV-Autovermietung GmbH v Inspecteur van de Belastingsdienst/Douane Zuid/kantoor Roosendaal (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom to provide services — Articles 49 EC to 55 EC — Motor vehicles — Use in one Member State of a motor vehicle registered and hired in another Member State — Taxation of that vehicle in the first Member State upon its first use on the national road network)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/13

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Breda (Netherlands)) — VAV-Autovermietung GmbH v Inspecteur van de Belastingsdienst/Douane Zuid/kantoor Roosendaal
   (Case C-91/10) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Freedom to provide services - Articles 49 EC to 55 EC - Motor vehicles - Use in one Member State of a motor vehicle registered and hired in another Member State - Taxation of that vehicle in the first Member State upon its first use on the national road network)
   2011/C 30/19
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Breda (Netherlands)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: VAV-Autovermietung GmbH

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingsdienst/Douane Zuid/kantoor Roosendaal

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Breda — Interpretation of Articles 56 TFEU to 62 TFEU — National legislation providing for the levy of a registration tax upon the first use of a vehicle on the national road network

      Operative part of the order

   Articles 49 EC to 55 EC must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which a person residing or established in one Member State who uses, in that Member State, a motor vehicle registered and hired in another Member State must, upon the first use of that vehicle on the road network of the first Member State, pay in full a tax the balance of which, calculated according to the duration of use of the vehicle on the network, is reimbursed, without interest, after that use has ended.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Joined Cases T-83/11 and T-84/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2012 — Antrax It v OHIM — THC (Radiators for heating) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community designs representing thermosiphons for the purposes of radiators for heating — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — Lack of individual character — Overall impression not different — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — No scope for innovation — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2012 — Antrax It v OHIM — THC (Radiators for heating)
   (Joined Cases T-83/11 and T-84/11) (1)

   (Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community designs representing thermosiphons for the purposes of radiators for heating - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Lack of individual character - Overall impression not different - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - No scope for innovation - Obligation to state reasons)
   2012/C 399/32
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: L. Gazzola, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Mannucci and A. Folliard-Monguiral initially, then A. Folliard-Monguiral and F. Mattina, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: The Heating Company (THC) (Dilsen, Belgium) (represented by: J. Haber, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 November 2010 (Cases R 1451/2009-3 and R 1452/2009-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between The Heating Company (THC) and Antrax It Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 2 November 2010 (Cases R 1451/2009-3 and R 1452/2009-3) in so far as they declared invalid the designs Nos 000593959-0001 and 000593959-0002;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay the costs incurred by Antrax It Srl in the proceedings before the General Court;

               4.

               Orders The Heating Company (THC), in addition to bearing its own costs before the General Court, to pay those incurred by Antrax It in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.


title: Case T-507/08: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2011 — Psytech International v OHIM — Institute for Personality & Ability Testing (16PF) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark 16PF — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — No descriptive character — No signs which have become customary — No bad faith — Article 7(1)(b) to (d) and Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) to (d) and Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2011 — Psytech International v OHIM — Institute for Personality & Ability Testing (16PF)
   (Case T-507/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark 16PF - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - No descriptive character - No signs which have become customary - No bad faith - Article 7(1)(b) to (d) and Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) to (d) and Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 211/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Psytech International Ltd (Pulloxhill, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Phillips, Solicitor and N. Saunders, Barrister)

      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: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing, Inc. (Champaign, United States) (represented by: G. Hobbs QC and A. Chaudri, Solicitor)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2008 (Case R 1012/2007-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Psytech International Ltd and the Institute for Personality & Ability Testing, Inc.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Psytech International Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.


title: Case T-851/14: Action brought on 26 December 2014 — Slovak Telekom v Commission

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/30

         Action brought on 26 December 2014 — Slovak Telekom v Commission
   (Case T-851/14)
   (2015/C 127/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Slovak Telekom a.s. (Bratislava, Slovak Republic) (represented by: D. Geradin, lawyer, and R. O’Donoghue, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Forms of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action admissible;

               —

               annul articles 1 and 2 of the contested decision so far as it affects the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant by article 2 of the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               in the event the Court rejects the action as inadmissible or dismisses it on substance, order each party to bear its own costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 16 October 2014 (AT.39523 — Slovak Telekom) fining the applicant and its parent for abusive conduct in Slovak broadband market pursuant to Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made errors of law and a manifest error of assessment in finding that the applicant committed an abusive refusal to supply.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the applicant’s rights of defence in respect of its margin squeeze assessment. The applicant submits that:

                           —

                           the Commission failed to set out its reasoned objections to certain relevant cost principles, methodology and data put forward by the applicant until the contested decision; and

                           —

                           the Commission put forward for the first time in the contested decision a new ‘multi-period’ approach to overturn what was previously a positive margin for 2005 into a negative one.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission made errors of facts and/or law and/or a manifest error of assessment in finding that the applicant’s conduct constituted a margin squeeze. The applicant contends that:

                           —

                           the Commission misapplied the long-run average incremental cost (‘LRAIC’) principles, methodology and data and ignored the applicant’s efficient LRAIC costs; and

                           —

                           the Commission committed legal errors and/or made manifest errors of assessment under its ‘multi-period’ approach.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission made errors of law and a manifest error of assessment in that it concluded that the applicant and Deutsche Telekom are part of a single undertaking and that they are both liable for the applicant’s alleged infringement.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, the Commission made errors of law and a manifest error of assessment and breached the principle of equal treatment in the determination of the amount of the fine.