title: Case T-164/13: Action brought on 15 March 2013 — Sun Capital Partners/OHIM — Sun Capital Partners (SUN CAPITAL)

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/26

         Action brought on 15 March 2013 — Sun Capital Partners/OHIM — Sun Capital Partners (SUN CAPITAL)
   (Case T-164/13)
   2013/C 147/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sun Capital Partners, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: P.-A. Dubois, Solicitor, D. Alexander, QC and F. Clark, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sun Capital Partners Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision of the Board; and/or

               —

               Remit the matter for further consideration by the Board;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board;

               —

               Order SCPL to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board, in the event that SCLP becomes an intervening party in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘SUN CAPITAL’– Community trade mark registration No 2 942 654

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds of the request for a declaration of invalidity were those laid down in Articles 53(1)(c) and 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested Community trade mark invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 53(1) in conjunction with 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-204/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) v European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeals — Television broadcasting — Directive 89/552/EEC — Article 3a — Measures taken by the Kingdom of Belgium concerning events of major importance for the society of that Member State — Football World Cup — Decision declaring the measures compatible with European Union law — Statement of reasons — Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Right to property)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) v European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-204/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Television broadcasting - Directive 89/552/EEC - Article 3a - Measures taken by the Kingdom of Belgium concerning events of major importance for the society of that Member State - Football World Cup - Decision declaring the measures compatible with European Union law - Statement of reasons - Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Right to property)
   2013/C 260/04
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) (represented by: A. Barav and D. Reymond, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents, and M. Gray, Barrister), Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, and A. Joachimowicz and J. Stuyck, advocaten), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski and J. Beeko, and Agents, assisted by T. de la Mare QC)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 February 2011 in Case T-385/07 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v Commission, dismissing an action seeking the annulment of Commission Decision 2007/479/EC of 25 June 2007 declaring compatible with Community law measures taken by Belgium pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 2007 L 180, p. 24)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: Case C-106/05: Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of  8 June 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — L.u.P. GmbH v Finanzamt Bochum-Mitte (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13A(1)(b) and (c) and (2)(a) — Medical care provided by bodies other than those governed by public law — Medical care provided in the exercise of a medical profession — Medical tests carried out by a laboratory governed by private law outside a centre for treatment on prescription from general practitioners — Conditions for the exemption — Member States' discretion — Limits)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/7

         Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — L.u.P. GmbH v Finanzamt Bochum-Mitte
   (Case C-106/05) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13A(1)(b) and (c) and (2)(a) - Medical care provided by bodies other than those governed by public law - Medical care provided in the exercise of a medical profession - Medical tests carried out by a laboratory governed by private law outside a centre for treatment on prescription from general practitioners - Conditions for the exemption - Member States' discretion - Limits)
   (2006/C 178/11)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: L.u.P. GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Bochum-Mitte
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 13A(1)(b) and (2) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive 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) — Exemptions — Activities closely related to hospital or medical care — Medical laboratory analyses ordered by general practitioners
   Operative part of the judgement
   The Court hereby rules:

               Article 13A(1)(b) 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that medical tests which have as their purpose the observation and examination of patients for prophylactic purposes, carried out, like those at issue in the main proceedings, by a laboratory governed by private law outside a centre for treatment on prescription from general practitioners, may come within the exemption provided for by that provision as medical care provided by another duly recognised establishment of a similar nature within the meaning of that provision.

               Article 13A(1)(b) and (2)(a) of that directive does not preclude national legislation which makes the exemption of such medical tests subject to conditions which, first, do not apply to the exemption of care provided by the general practitioners who prescribed them and, second, are different from those applicable to closely related activities to medical care within the meaning of the first-mentioned provision.

               Article 13A(1)(b) of the same directive precludes national legislation which makes the exemption of medical tests carried out by a laboratory governed by private law outside a centre for treatment subject to the condition that they be carried out under medical supervision. However, that provision permits such legislation to make the exemption of those tests subject to the condition that at least 40 % of those services must be intended for persons insured by a social security authority.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Case C-22/09: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Energy policy — Energy savings — Directive 2002/91/EC — Energy performance of buildings — Failure to transpose the directive within the prescribed time-limit)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/15

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-22/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Energy policy - Energy savings - Directive 2002/91/EC - Energy performance of buildings - Failure to transpose the directive within the prescribed time-limit)
   2010/C 63/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and L. de Schietere de Lophem, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 65), or failure to notify them to the Commission, within the prescribed time-limit

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82 of 4.04.2009.


title: Case C-289/08: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 96/82/EC — Article 11(1)(c) — External emergency plans — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-289/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 96/82/EC - Article 11(1)(c) - External emergency plans - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   2009/C 113/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to draw up external emergency plans for the measures to be taken outside establishments subject to Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to draw up within the period prescribed an external emergency plan for the measures to be taken outside establishments subject to Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case C-319/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2013 — Udo Rätzke v S+K Handels GmbH

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2013 — Udo Rätzke v S+K Handels GmbH
   (Case C-319/13)
   2013/C 260/38
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Thüringer Oberlandesgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Udo Rätzke

      Respondant: S+K Handels GmbH

      Questions referred

   Is Article 4(a) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2010 (1) of 28 September 2010 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of televisions to be interpreted as meaning that dealers are subject to an obligation to label televisions (from 30 November 2011) only if those televisions were supplied by the supplier together with the relevant label (from 30 November 2011) in accordance with Article 3(1)(a) of that regulation, or does the labelling obligation also apply to dealers (from 30 November 2011) in respect of televisions supplied by suppliers before 30 November 2011 without the relevant labels, so that dealers are obliged to request suppliers (in good time, subsequently) to provide labels for those televisions?

      (1)  OJ L 314, p. 64.


title: Case C-566/10 P: Appeal brought on 2 December 2010 by the Italian Republic against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 13 September 2010 in Joined Cases T-166/07 and T-285/07 Italian Republic v European Commission

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/21

         Appeal brought on 2 December 2010 by the Italian Republic against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 13 September 2010 in Joined Cases T-166/07 and T-285/07 Italian Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-566/10 P)
   2011/C 63/38
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other part to the proceedings: European Commission, Republic of Lithuania, Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, pursuant to Articles 56, 58 and 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the judgment delivered by the General Court of the European Union on 13 September 2010 in Joined Cases T-166/07 and T-258/07 in the actions brought by the Italian Republic for the annulment of:

                           1.

                           Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/94/07 to constitute a reserve pool for 125 posts of Administrator (AD5) in the field of information, communication and the media;

                           2.

                           Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AST/37/07 to constitute a reserve pool for 110 posts of Assistant (AST3) in the field of communication and information,
                           both published in the English, French and German editions of the Official Journal of the European Communities of 28 February 2007, No C 45A;

                           3.

                           Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/95/07 to constitute a reserve pool for 20 posts of Administrator (AD5) in the field of information science (library/documentation),
                           published only in the English, French and German editions of the Official Journal of the European Communities of 8 May 2007, No C 103;

               —

               itself rule on the action and annul the Notices of Competition referred to above;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant relies on seven grounds of appeal.
   By the first ground of appeal, it is submitted that the judgment under appeal infringes the system of competences for determining the languages to be used deriving from Article 342 TFEU in conjunction with Article 6 of Council Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used. (1) By Article 6 of Regulation No 1/58, the Council conferred competence on the institutions to stipulate in their rules of procedure which of the languages are to be used in specific cases. However, the General Court unlawfully found that the Commission can determine certain aspects of its rules on the use of languages even in connection with simple notices of competition.
   The second ground of appeal is directed against the arguments with which the General Court rejected the plea alleging infringement of Articles 1, 4 and 5 of Regulation No 1/58. The appellant challenges, in several material respects, the argument that notices of competition do not constitute documents of general application within the meaning of Article 4 of the regulation and that they are therefore not covered by the general rules for determining the languages to be used laid down by the regulation. In its view, the argument of the General Court is also undermined indirectly by certain aspects of the Staff Regulations.
   By the third ground of appeal, criticism is levelled at the part of the judgment under appeal in which the General Court, with reference to the full publication of the notices of competition in question in only three languages, did not accept that there had been infringement of the principle of non-discrimination established in Article 12 EC (now Article 18 TFEU) and the principle of multilingualism laid down in Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6(3) EU, Article 5 of Regulation No 1/58 and Article 1(2) and (3) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations. In the appellant’s view, the subsequent publication in all languages of summary notices referring to the full publication of the notices in French, German and English was not capable of preventing discrimination to the detriment of candidates having languages other than those in question, contrary to the view taken by the General Court. By taking account of the subsequent publication of the notices, the General Court infringed primarily Article 263 TFEU, in that the legality of an act which it is required to review should be assessed by reference only to the wording of the act at the time at which it was adopted and subsequent factors cannot be taken into account.
   The fourth ground of appeal relates to the unlawfulness of the choice of only three languages as ‘second language’ for the competition. The reasoning of the General Court in reaching the conclusion that there was no discrimination and that the choices made by the Commission were not inconsistent gives rise, inter alia, to infringement of a series of provisions (Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58 and Article 1d(1) and (6), the second paragraph of Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations) which establish the principle of multilingualism also within the institutions of the European Union. Contrary to the finding of the General Court, it was not for the appellant to demonstrate that no exceptions could be applied but for the Commission to give reasons for its choice in that regard.
   By the fifth ground of appeal, it is alleged that the General Court erred in rejecting the claim that the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations was infringed by failing to accept that the Commission’s well-established practice in competition matters may have given rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of potential candidates as regards certain rules governing competitions.
   By the sixth ground of appeal, the appellant submits that, by finding that the administration was not required, in the contested notices of competition, to justify the choice of the three languages to be used, the General Court infringed the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, which provides that all legal acts are to state the reasons on which they are based.
   Finally, the seventh ground of appeal alleges infringement of the substantive rules relating to the nature and purpose of notices of competition, in particular Article 1d(1) and (6), Article 28(f) and the second paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulation. The General Court erred in law in finding that it is not for the selection board alone to assess the language skills of the candidates because the authority which issues the notice could as a preliminary matter make a prior selection of the persons concerned on the basis of purely linguistic criteria.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Communities (OJ, English Special Edition Chapter 1952-1958, p. 59).


title: Case T-219/17: Action brought on 12 April 2017 — M J Quinlan & Associates v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (Shape of a kangaroo)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/31

         Action brought on 12 April 2017 — M J Quinlan & Associates v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (Shape of a kangaroo)
   (Case T-219/17)
   (2017/C 178/45)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: M J Quinlan & Associates Pty Ltd (Hope Island, Queensland, Australia) (represented by: M. Freiherr von Welser and A. Bender, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intersnack Group GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU tridimensional mark (Shape of a kangaroo) — European Union trade mark No 13 342

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 January 2017 in Case R 218/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs;

               —

               conduct an oral hearing, in order to ensure the parties’ right to a full hearing.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 15(1)(2)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-291/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 9 June 2011 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v TNT Freight Management (Amsterdam) BV

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 9 June 2011 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v TNT Freight Management (Amsterdam) BV
   (Case C-291/11)
   2011/C 252/33
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Respondent: TNT Freight Management (Amsterdam) BV

      Question referred

   Should Note 1(g) to Chapter 30 of the Harmonised System, read in conjunction with Note 1(b) to Chapter 35 of the Harmonised System, be interpreted as meaning that blood albumin, which itself has no therapeutic or prophylactic effect but which has been produced with a view to, and is essential for, the preparation of products which do have a therapeutic or prophylactic effect, and which by its nature can be used only for that purpose, has been prepared for therapeutic or prophylactic uses within the meaning of that note?


title: Case C-366/09: Action brought on 11 September 2009 — Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/16

         Action brought on 11 September 2009 — Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-366/09)
   2009/C 256/31
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and E. Vesco, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/43/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annul accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC, or in any event failing to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2006/43/EC;

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for implementing the directive expired on 28 June 2008.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 157, p. 87.


20150731030616892015/C 270/423012015TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150608343411Case T-301/15: Action brought on 8 June 2015 — Jochen Schweizer v OHIM (Du bist, was du erlebst.)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN3410120150608EN0042341341Action brought on 8 June 2015 — Jochen Schweizer v OHIM (Du bist, was du erlebst.)
   (Case T-301/15)2015/C 270/42Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Jochen Schweizer GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. González Hähnlein, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Du bist, was du erlebst.’ — Application No 13 250 865

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 April 2015 in Case R 3114/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

            —

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


title: Case T-281/09: Action brought on 17 July 2009 — Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer v OHIM (CHROMA)

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/6

         Action brought on 17 July 2009 — Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer v OHIM (CHROMA)
   (Case T-281/09)
   2009/C 244/09
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer AG (Frechen, Germany) (represented by J. Albrecht, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Fourth Board of Appeal) of 8 May 2009, in so far as the application for registration of the mark in respect of the requested goods in Classes 19 and 11 was rejected;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CHROMA’ for goods and services in Classes 11, 19 and 37 (Application No 6 731 103)

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration rejected in part.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) in that the word ‘CHROMA’ has no directly descriptive meaning.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-289/12 P: Appeal brought on 8 June 2012 by Zdeněk Altner against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 23 March 2012 in Case T-535/11 Altner v Commission

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/8

         Appeal brought on 8 June 2012 by Zdeněk Altner against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 23 March 2012 in Case T-535/11 Altner v Commission
   (Case C-289/12 P)
   2013/C 141/12
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Appellant: Zdeněk Altner (represented by: J. Čapek, advokát)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   By order of 7 March 2013 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Zdeněk Altner to bear his own costs.


title: Case C-495/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat — Austria) — Silberquelle GmbH v Maselli Strickmode GmbH (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Articles 10 and 12 — Revocation — Concept of genuine use of a mark — Affixing the mark to promotional items — Distribution of such items free of charge to the purchasers of goods sold by the mark's proprietor)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat — Austria) — Silberquelle GmbH v Maselli Strickmode GmbH
   (Case C-495/07) (1)

   (Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Articles 10 and 12 - Revocation - Concept of ‘genuine use’ of a mark - Affixing the mark to promotional items - Distribution of such items free of charge to the purchasers of goods sold by the mark's proprietor)
   (2009/C 55/04)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberster Patent- und Markensenat
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Silberquelle GmbH

      Defendant: Maselli Strickmode GmbH
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Patent- und Markensenat — Interpretation of Articles 10(1) and 12(1) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Revocation of the rights of the proprietor of the trade mark — Concept of genuine use of the trade mark — Goods (non-alcoholic drink) being given out as free gifts on the occasion of the sale of other goods (textiles)
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 10(1) and 12(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that, where the proprietor of a mark affixes that mark to items that it gives, free of charge, to purchasers of its goods, it does not make genuine use of that mark in respect of the class covering those items.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Case C-93/11 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2011 by Verein Deutsche Sprache eV against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2010 in Case T-245/10 Verein Deutsche Sprache e.V. v Council of the European Union

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/19

         Appeal brought on 25 February 2011 by Verein Deutsche Sprache eV against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2010 in Case T-245/10 Verein Deutsche Sprache e.V. v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-93/11 P)
   2011/C 269/32
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Verein Deutsche Sprache e.V. (represented by: K.T. Bröcker, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
   By order of 28 June 2011 the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.


title: Case C-265/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Emiliano Torralbo Marcos v Korota SA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Request for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Judicial fees and deposits required for lodging appeals in employment law cases — Failure to implement EU law — Scope of EU law — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Emiliano Torralbo Marcos v Korota SA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial
   (Case C-265/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy - Judicial fees and deposits required for lodging appeals in employment law cases - Failure to implement EU law - Scope of EU law - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   2014/C 151/08
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Emiliano Torralbo Marcos

      Defendants: Korota SA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social de Terrassa — Interpretation of Art. 47 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1) and of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (codified version) (OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36) — Right to effective judicial protection — National legislation making the bringing of legal proceedings subject to payment of the judicial fees — Powers of the national court hearing the action — Application in the field of social policy — Insolvency of employers.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de la Social No 2 de Terrassa (Spain).

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case T-640/13: Action brought on 2 December 2013 — Sto v OHIM — Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding (CRETEO)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/24

         Action brought on 2 December 2013 — Sto v OHIM — Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding (CRETEO)
   (Case T-640/13)
   2014/C 39/43
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sto AG (Stühlingen, Germany) (represented by: K. Kern and J. Sklepek, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding AG (Baar, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 September 2013 in Case R 905/2012-4 to the effect that the opposition is upheld to the extent put forward in the appeal and Community trade mark application No 9207085 is rejected;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding AG

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘CRETEO’ for goods in Classes 1, 2, 17 and 19 — Community trade mark application No 9207085

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word marks ‘StoCretec’ and ‘STOCRETE’ for goods in Classes 1, 2, 17 and 19

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

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


title: Case C-345/05: Action brought on 21 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/12

         Action brought on 21 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-345/05)
   (2005/C 281/22)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by R. Lyal and M. Afonso, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by having maintained in force fiscal provisions making entitlement to exemption from tax on capital gains arising from the transfer for valuable consideration of real property intended for the taxable person's own and permanent residence or for that of a member of his family subject, as provided for by Article 10(5) of the Personal Income Tax Code, to the condition, laid down in subparagraph (a) of that provision, that the gains realised should be reinvested in the purchase of property situated in Portuguese territory, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18, 39, 43 and 56(1) EC, and under Articles 28, 31 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area;

               2.

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The condition requiring the reinvestment of gains realised on the sale of real property used for the personal and permanent residence of a taxable person or for that of a member of his family in the purchase of other real property in Portuguese territory clearly constitutes an impediment to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty and the EEA Agreement.
   The explanations and justifications for that condition presented by the Portuguese Republic do not merit consideration.


               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/27

         Removal from the Register of Case T-189/04 (1)

   (2005/C 69/47)
   (Language of the case: French)
   By order of 16 December 2004, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-189/04, Christian van der Haegen v European Economic and Social Committee.

      (1)  OJ C 217 of 28.8.2004.


title: Case C-355/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 30 August 2006 — J.A. van der Steen v Inspector van de belastingdienst Utrecht-Gooi/kantoor Utrecht

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 30 August 2006 — J.A. van der Steen v Inspector van de belastingdienst Utrecht-Gooi/kantoor Utrecht
   (Case C-355/06)
   (2006/C 294/39)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Gerechtshof te Amsterdam
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: J.A. van der Steen

      Defendant: Inspector van de belastingdienst Utrecht-Gooi/kantoor Utrecht
   Question referred
   Is Article 4(1) of the Sixth Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that if a natural person has the sole activity of actually carrying out all work ensuing from the activities of a private limited company of which he is the sole manager, sole shareholder and sole ‘member of staff’, that work is not an economic activity because it is carried out in the course of the management and representation of the private limited company and thus not in economic dealings?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, p. 1)


title: Case C-295/12 P: Appeal brought on 13 June 2012 by Telefónica S.A. and Telefónica de España, S.A.U. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 29 March 2012 in Case T-336/07 Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Commission

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/10

         Appeal brought on 13 June 2012 by Telefónica S.A. and Telefónica de España, S.A.U. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 29 March 2012 in Case T-336/07 Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Commission
   (Case C-295/12 P)
   2012/C 243/19
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellants: Telefónica S.A. and Telefónica de España, S.A.U. (represented by: F. González Díaz and J. Baño Fos, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, France Telecom España, S.A., Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc Consumo) and European Competitive Telecommunications Association

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court of Justice should:

               —

                     Primarily
                  ,
               set aside, in its entirety or in part, the judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 in Case T-336/07 Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Commission;
               on the basis of the information at its disposal, annul, in its entirety or in part, the decision of the European Commission of 4 July 2007 in Case COMP/38.784 — Wanadoo España v Telefónica;
               revoke or reduce the fine pursuant to Article 261 TFEU;
               revoke or reduce the fine as a result of the unjustifiable duration of the proceedings before the General Court; and
               order the Commission and the parties intervening in support of the Commission to pay the costs of both these proceedings and those before the General Court.

               —

                     In the alternative, if the above is not possible at this stage of the proceedings,

               set aside the judgment of the General Court and refer the case back to the General Court for it to be reheard in the light of the issues of law settled by the Court of Justice;
               revoke or reduce the fine pursuant to Article 261 TFEU; and
               order the Commission and the parties intervening in support of the Commission to pay the costs of both these proceedings and those before the General Court.

               —

                     In any event,

               grant access, pursuant to Article 15 TFEU, to the transcript or recording of the oral hearing which took place before the General Court on 23 May 2011, and hold an oral hearing.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellants claim that the General Court:

               1.

               Infringed Telefónica’s rights of defence:

                           —

                           as a result of the disproportionate duration of the proceedings;

                           —

                           by failing to admit claims supported by annexes;

                           —

                           by failing to admit claims relating to the fact that the inputs were not indispensable as a relevant factor when determining the effects of Telefónica’s conduct;

                           —

                           by admitting new facts which were not included in the statement of objections.

               2.

               Committed an error of law in its definition of the wholesale markets at issue.

               3.

               Committed an error of law in its assessment of the alleged dominant position of Telefónica.

               4.

               Committed an error of law and infringed the European Convention of Human Rights by allowing the impairment of Telefónica’s property rights in relation to non-indispensable inputs.

               5.

               Committed an error of law and manifestly distorted the facts in its assessment of the abuse and its alleged effects on competition in relation to:

                           —

                           The choice of wholesale inputs;

                           —

                           The discounted cash flow method;

                           —

                           The ‘period to period’ method;

                           —

                           The likely or concrete effects of the conduct.

               6.

               Committed an error of law in its assessment of the Commission’s ultra vires actions and infringed the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality, legal certainty, loyal cooperation and sound administration.

               7.

               Infringed the principle of legal certainty in its definition of the type of legal infringement and erred in law in its assessment of the deliberate and negligent nature of Telefónica’s conduct.

               8.

               Committed an error of law and manifestly distorted the facts in calculating the amount of the fine, in, inter alia,

                           —

                           characterising the conduct as a very serious infringement;

                           —

                           its assessment of the infringement of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality and the principle that penalties must fit the offence; and

                           —

                           failing to provide grounds.

               9.

               Infringed Article 229 EC (now Article 261 TFEU).


title: Case F-93/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Mische v Parliament (Civil service — Appointment — Recruitment and simultaneous transfer to another institution — Grading under new, less favourable rules — Admissibility of the action — Interest in bringing an action — Action out of time)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/22

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Mische v Parliament
   (Case F-93/05) (1)

   (Civil service - Appointment - Recruitment and simultaneous transfer to another institution - Grading under new, less favourable rules - Admissibility of the action - Interest in bringing an action - Action out of time)
   2012/C 138/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Harald Mische (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, and subsequently by R. Holland, B. Maluch and J. Mische, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: K. Zejdová and L.G. Knudsen, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Parliament’s decision classifying the applicant at grade A*6 following a competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, under the less favourable provisions of those regulations (Article 12 of Annex XIII to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials) and an application for damages

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union, the intervener, to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 10.12.2005, p. 15 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under the Number T-365/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case C-196/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Special Commissioners, London — United Kingdom) — Cadbury Schweppes plc, Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Freedom of establishment — Law on controlled foreign companies — Inclusion of the profits of controlled foreign companies in the tax base of the parent company)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Special Commissioners, London — United Kingdom) — Cadbury Schweppes plc, Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
   (Case C-196/04) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Law on controlled foreign companies - Inclusion of the profits of controlled foreign companies in the tax base of the parent company)
   (2006/C 281/08)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Special Commissioners, London
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Cadbury Schweppes plc, Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd

      Defendant: Commissioners of Inland Revenue
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Special Commissioners, London — National legislation attributing to a parent company the profits of a subsidiary resident in another Member State which has a lower rate of taxation — Obligation of the parent company to pay a charge in order to off set the difference between the two rates of taxation — Whether compatible with Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 56 EC
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 43 EC and 48 EC must be interpreted as precluding the inclusion in the tax base of a resident company established in a Member State of profits made by a controlled foreign company in another Member State, where those profits are subject in that State to a lower level of taxation than that applicable in the first State, unless such inclusion relates only to wholly artificial arrangements intended to escape the national tax normally payable. Accordingly, such a tax measure must not be applied where it is proven, on the basis of objective factors which are ascertainable by third parties, that despite the existence of tax motives that controlled company is actually established in the host Member State and carries on genuine economic activities there.

      (1)  OJ C 168, 26. 6. 2004.


title: Case C-321/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret by order of that court of 3 August 2004 in Hans Markus Kofoed v Skatteministeriet

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret by order of that court of 3 August 2004 in Hans Markus Kofoed v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-321/05)
   (2005/C 257/10)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Østre Landsret (Denmark) of 3 August 2004, received at the Court Registry on 23 August 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Hans Markus Kofoed and Skatteministeriet (Danish Ministry of Taxation) on the following question:
   Is Article 2(d) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States to be interpreted as meaning that there is no exchange of shares within the meaning of that directive where the persons involved in the exchange of shares, at the same time as agreeing to exchange the shares in a non-legally binding manner, declare it to be their common intention to vote, at the first general meeting of the acquiring company after the exchange, in favour of distributing a profit in excess of 10 % of the nominal value of the security which was transferred in connection with the exchange of shares and such a profit is in fact distributed?


               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/1

         (2008/C 79/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 64, 8.3.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 51, 23.2.2008

      OJ C 37, 9.2.2008

      OJ C 22, 26.1.2008

      OJ C 8, 12.1.2008

      OJ C 315, 22.12.2007

      OJ C 297, 8.12.2007

   These texts are available on:

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


title: Case T-294/17: Action brought on 12 May 2017 — Lion’s Head Global Partners v EUIPO — Lion Capital (Lion’s Head)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/42

         Action brought on 12 May 2017 — Lion’s Head Global Partners v EUIPO — Lion Capital (Lion’s Head)
   (Case T-294/17)
   (2017/C 231/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Lion’s Head Global Partners LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Nöske, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lion Capital LLP (London, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration No 997 073 designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘Lion’s Head’

      Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 February 2017 in Case R 1478/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and reject the opposition;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-281/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 October 2011 — PepsiCo, Inc., v Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Articles 5, 6, 10 and 25(1)(d) — Community design — Registered Community design representing a circular promotional item — Prior Community design — Different overall impression — Degree of freedom of the designer — Informed user — Scope of review by the Courts — Distortion of the facts)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 October 2011 — PepsiCo, Inc., v Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-281/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Articles 5, 6, 10 and 25(1)(d) - Community design - Registered Community design representing a circular promotional item - Prior Community design - Different overall impression - Degree of freedom of the designer - Informed user - Scope of review by the Courts - Distortion of the facts)
   2011/C 362/12
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: PepsiCo, Inc., (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, abogado, and V. von Bomhard, Rechtsanwältin)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, abogada), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 in Case T-9/07 Grupo Promer Mon Graphic v OHIM — Pepsico, by which that Court upheld an action brought by the proprietor of Community design No 53186 1 against decision R 1001/2005-3 of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 27 October 2006, annulling the decision of the Invalidity Division which declared design No 74463 1 (‘promotional item[s] for games’) invalid

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders PepsiCo Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Action brought on 17 October 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-328/95)

text:
No C 333/ 10          EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9 . 12 . 95
consists of a unilateral intervention in a field exhaustively             system in order to justify a failure to comply with its
and exclusively regulated by the common organization of                   obligations under Community law.
the market .
                                                                          (') OJ No L 119 , 11 . 5 . 1990 , p . 32 .
(') OJ, English Special Edition, Series ( I ) 1965 to 1966 , p. 221 .     ( 2 ) OJ No L 41 , 14 . 2 . 1991 , p . 15 .
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Value Added Tax
Action brought on 17 October 1995 by the Commission of                    Tribunal, Manchester, by direction of that court of
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                   18 September 1995 , in the case of Goldsmiths (Jewellers )
                        ( Case C-328/95 )                                       Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise
                          ( 95/C 333/ 18 )                                                           ( Case C-330/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 333/ 19 )
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
17 October 1995 by the Commission of the European                         European Communities by direction of the Value Added
Communities, represented by Eugenio March, Legal                          Tax Tribunal, Manchester, of 18 September 1995 , which
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                  was received at the Court Registry on 19 October 1995 , for
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its               a preliminary ruling in the case of Goldsmiths (Jewellers )
Legal Service , Wagner Centre , Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                    Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the
                                                                          following question :
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                          Is the derogation contained in Article 11 ( c ) ( 1 ) of the Sixth
1 . declare that, by not adopting the measures necessary for              Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of
     the correct and full application of Council Regulation               the laws of Member States relating to turnover taxes
     ( EEC ) No 1186/90 (*) of 7 May 1990 extending the                   — Common system of value added tax: uniform
     scope of the Community scale for the classification of               basis of assessment (Directive 77/388/EEC ) (the 'Sixth
     carcases of adult bovine animals and Commission                      Directive ') (') to be interpreted as permitting a Member
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 344/91 ( 2 ) of 13 February 1991               State which enacts provisions for the refund of tax in the
                                                                          case of bad debts to exclude relief where the consideration
     laying down detailed rules for the implementation
     thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its               lost consists of something other than money ?
     obligations under those regulations and the second
     paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty .                          (!) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments:
Since Article 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1186/90 requires
Member States to take all the measures necessary to ensure                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                                                                          Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli by
that the provisions are applied and to penalize any                       order of that court of 4 October 1995 in criminal
infringements, it requires the Member States therefore to
                                                                          proceedings against Giuseppe Piccolo ( Case C-331/95 ),
adopt in their national legal system the laws, regulations or             Mario Corbo and Others ( Case C-332/95 ) and Miranda
administrative provisions necessary actually to implement
                                                                                Viola ( Case C-342/95 )
the Community classification scale .
                                                                                ( Cases C-331/95 , C-332/95 and C-342/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 333/20 )
The Italian Republic has not yet taken the measures it was
required to adopt for the full and correct implementation
of Council Regulations ( EEC ) No 1186/90 and ( EEC )                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
No 344/91 and has therefore failed to fulfil its obligations               the European Communities by orders of the Pretura
under those regulations and under the second paragraph of                  Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli
Article 189 of the EC Treaty. The Court has consistently                   ( Rome District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of
held that a Member State may not plead provisions,                         4 October 1995 , which were received at the Court Registry
practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal                  on 19 October 1995 ( Cases C-331/95 and C-332/95 ) and


title: Case C-359/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 30 July 2012 — Dr. Michael Timmel v Aviso Zeta AG

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 30 July 2012 — Dr. Michael Timmel v Aviso Zeta AG
   (Case C-359/12)
   2012/C 366/39
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Handelsgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dr. Michael Timmel

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Lore Tinhofer

      Defendant: Aviso Zeta AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 22(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 of 29 April 2004 implementing Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards information contained in prospectuses as well as the format, incorporation by reference and publication of such prospectuses and dissemination of advertisements (‘Regulation (EC) No 809/2004’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that information that is in principle mandatory which was not yet known at the time of approval of the base prospectus but was already known at the time of publication of a supplement to the prospectus is to be included in the supplement to the prospectus?

               2.

               Is the derogation in Article 22(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 of 29 April 2004 implementing Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards information contained in prospectuses as well as the format, incorporation by reference and publication of such prospectuses and dissemination of advertisements (‘Regulation (EC) No 809/2004’), according to which the inclusion of the information items within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 22(1) may be omitted, applicable even if that (mandatory) information was known before the issue date but after publication of the base prospectus in which that information was not included?

               3.

               Is it possible to speak of lawful publication if only a base prospectus without the mandatory information under the third sentence of Article 22(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 of 29 April 2004 implementing Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards information contained in prospectuses as well as the format, incorporation by reference and publication of such prospectuses and dissemination of advertisements (‘Regulation (EC) No 809/2004’) and in particular under Annex 5 (as regards securities with denomination per unit of less than EUR 50 000) was published and if the final terms were not subsequently published?

               4.

               Is the requirement laid down in Article 29(1)(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 of 29 April 2004 implementing Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards information contained in prospectuses as well as the format, incorporation by reference and publication of such prospectuses and dissemination of advertisements (‘Regulation (EC) No 809/2004’) that the prospectus or the base prospectus must be easily accessible on the web-site, where these are made available, fulfilled:

                           (a)

                           if accessing, downloading as well as printing, require registration on the website on which access may subsequently take place, whereby registration requires acceptance of a disclaimer and communication of an e-mail address, or

                           (b)

                           if it is necessary to make a payment for that, or

                           (c)

                           if free of charge access to parts of a prospectus is restricted to two documents per month, but it is necessary to download at least three documents in order to obtain all the required information within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 22(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 of 29 April 2004 implementing Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards information contained in prospectuses as well as the format, incorporation by reference and publication of such prospectuses and dissemination of advertisements (‘Regulation No 809/2004’)?

               5.

               Is Article 14(2)(b) of Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and amending Directive 2001/34/EC (‘Directive 2003/71/EC’) (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the base prospectus must be made available at the registered office of the issuer and at the offices of the financial intermediaries?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 149, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2003 L 345, p. 64.


title: Case T-312/07: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Dimos Peramatos v Commission (Financial contribution granted for an environmental project — LIFE — Decision to recover in part the amount paid out — Determination of the obligations of the recipient undertaken in the financed project — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Dimos Peramatos v Commission
   (Case T-312/07) (1)

   (Financial contribution granted for an environmental project - LIFE - Decision to recover in part the amount paid out - Determination of the obligations of the recipient undertaken in the financed project - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state reasons)
   2011/C 347/40
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Dimos Peramatos (Perama, Greece) (represented by: G. Gerapetritis and P. Petropoulos, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, Agents, assisted by A. Somou, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for annulment or, in the alternative, amendment of Decision E(2005) 5361 of the Commission of 7 December 2005 relating to Debit Note No 3240504536 which was issued to the Dimos Peramatos (Municipality of Perama) to recover the financial contribution which had been paid by the Commission in the context of the subsidy granted to the Dimos Peramatos by Commission Decision C(97)/1997/29 final of 17 July 1997.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Dimos Peratamos to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case C-505/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 21 October 2010 — Partrederiet Sea Fighter v Skatteministeriet

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 21 October 2010 — Partrederiet Sea Fighter v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-505/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/35
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Højesteret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Partrederiet Sea Fighter

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet

      Question referred

               1.

               Is Article 8(1)(c) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 (1) on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils to be interpreted as meaning that mineral oils supplied for use in an excavator which is affixed to a vessel but which, because it has its own separate motor and fuel tank, operates independently of the vessel’s propulsion motor, in circumstances such as those of the present case, are exempt from duty?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12


title: Case T-206/99: Action brought on 15 September 1999 by Métropole Télévision (M6) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
20.11.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 333/33
The applicant points out that, whereas the Council invoked                and Dirk Ehle, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs Ehle & Schiller,
systematically, for each document, Article 4(1) of its Decision           Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
93/731/EC (‘the Decision’), the Commission referred to the                Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 Rue Michel Welter.
Decision and indicated that the documents requested could
undermine the position of the EU in current and future                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
negotiations with Russia and could not, therefore, be made
available to the applicant.                                               1. annul the Commission’s decision of 5 February 1999
                                                                               (REM: 14/98);
In support of its claims, the applicant submits that:                     2. order the Commission to pay the costs.
— it is necessary to analyse and consider the relevance and
     weight of the denials in question in the light of the overall        Pleas in law and main arguments
     transparency aimed at by the Decision;
                                                                          The applicant’s pleas in law and main arguments are similar to
— the exception relating to international relations must                  those in Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97, T-191/97,
     be interpreted restrictively and applied carefully on a              T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211/97, T-216/97, T-217/97,
     case-by-case basis;                                                  T-218/97 (1), T-279/97 (2), T-280/97 (2), T-293/97 (3) and
                                                                          T-147/99 (4).
— in the present case the Council and the Commission are
     using what they consider to be part of their discretionary           (1) See, as regards all these cases, OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997, pp. 17 to
     authority to deny all rights to access to the requested                  25.
     documentation;                                                       (2) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997, p. 24.
                                                                          (3) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998, p. 24.
                                                                          (4) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999, p. 41.
— agendas of meetings held in 1998, possibly without critical
     annotations, are mere lists of tractanda which are usually
     made available to the press in connection with meetings,
     so that it is hardly conceivable that the release of such
     agendas, after the lapse of a year, could constitute a
     dangerous or prejudicial measure liable to have an adverse
     effect on the international relations of the European Union;         Action brought on 15 September 1999 by Métropole
                                                                          Télévision (M6) against the Commission of the European
— it is a fundamental principle of Community law that                                                  Communities
     citizens of the European Union should be granted the
     widest and fullest possible access to documents of the                                          (Case T-206/99)
     institutions of the European Union;
                                                                                (1999/C 333/75)
— in the present case, not only is the public interest at stake,
     but also the private interest of the applicant who needs to
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
     be able to defend before the Finnish courts his case that
     the contents of the requested documents do not have the
     highly confidential nature that is currently alleged by the          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     Council and the Commission.                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
                                                                          15 September 1999 by Métropole Télévision (M6), having its
                                                                          registered office in Neuilly-sur-Seine (France), represented by
                                                                          Didier Théophile, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service
                                                                          in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
                                                                          — annul the Commission’s decision of 29 June 1999;
Action brought on 15 September 1999 by HYPER S.r.l.                       — order the Commission to pay all the costs.
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case T-205/99)
                                                                          The applicant contests the Commission’s decision of 29 June
                          (1999/C 333/74)                                 1999 rejecting the complaint submitted by it against the
                                                                          European Broadcasting Union (EBU), concerning an alleged
                                                                          infringement by the EBU of Article 81(1) EC by virtue of its
                   (Language of the Case: German)                         refusal to accept the applicant’s application for membership
                                                                          of that organisation. That decision forms part of the aftermath
                                                                          to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 1996
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 in Joined Cases T-528/93, T-542/93, T-543/93 and T-546/93
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Métropole Télévision and Others v Commission [1996] ECR
European Communities on 15 September 1999 by HYPER                        II-649, in which the Court of First Instance annulled a decision
S.r.l., of Limena (Italien Republic), represented by Dietrich Ehle        exempting the EBU’s internal provisions and other regulations
 ---pagebreak--- C 333/34                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.11.1999
concerning the acquisition of television rights to sports events          The applicant claims that the Court should annul Decision
within the framework of Eurovision and contractual access to              C(1999) 1501 adopted by the Commission of the European
such programmes for third parties. According to the applicant,            Communities on 18 June 1999.
it is precisely on account of the persistent desire manifested by
the EBU, in the absence of the exemption previously enjoyed
by it, to deprive the applicant of the benefit of the rights held         Pleas in law and main arguments
by it by invoking, in opposition to its membership application,
criteria in its Statutes which contravene Article 81(1) EC, that          In the present proceedings, the applicant association contests
the applicant decided to refer the matter to the Commission.              Commission Decision C(1999) 1501 of 4 June 1999 in so far
                                                                          as it cancers the assistance granted to it, at the material time,
                                                                          by Commission Decision C(93) 3393 of 26 November 1993,
In support of its claims, the applicant maintains that:
                                                                          as amended by Decision C(96) 1603 of 18 July 1996,
— its complaint was based not on the EBU’s refusal to admit               concerning aid granted by the EAGGF Guidance Section
     it to membership but on the persistent attempts by the               pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 in connec-
     EBU to oppose its membership application by invoking                 tion with Project No 93.ES.06.028, entitled ‘Pilot project
                                                                          demonstrating innovative systems for improving the quality
     the anti-competitive criteria contained in its Statutes as a
                                                                          of fruit production in the Jalón Medio region (Zaragoza,
      ground for refusing to sell to it the rights held by it;
                                                                          Aragon, Spain) and adapting it to the market’.
— contrary to the Commission’s assertions, the Court of First
      Instance ruled in its aforementioned judgment on the                In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward the
      applicability of Article 81(1) of the Treaty to the rules           following arguments:
      governing admission to membership of the EBU, stating
                                                                          — Breach of the guarantees laid down in relation to proceed-
      that those rules to some extent distort competition vis-à-vis
                                                                               ings involving the hearing of both parties which may lead
      purely commercial charnels which are not admitted as
                                                                               to the imposition of a penalty. It maintains in that regard,
      members;
                                                                               first, that the contested decision does not indicate the
— whilst it is true that the Commission is not obliged to                      forum before which appeal proceedings may be brought,
      express a view on every argument contained in the                        nor whether that forum is a judicial body, nor the
      complaint, it has committed an error of assessment                       time-limit prescribed for bringing such an appeal. Second,
      rendering its decision liable to be annulled, by failing to              it asserts that the defendant institution has failed to adhere
      rule on the discrimination suffered by M6 as a result of the             to the principle that an investigation must be carried out,
      participation of CANAL + in the Eurovision system up                     and a decision reached, within a reasonable time;
      until the 1998 World Cup and the latter’s having been a             — Breach of the principles underlying the common agricul-
      member of the EBU despite never having fulfilled the                     tural policy, particularly as regards technological research
      criteria for admission to membership;                                    and development in that field and the necessary increase
                                                                               in productivity;
— in the present case, the Commission exercised its decision-
      making powers in competition matters not in order to                — Infringement of Articles 15(2), 23(2) and 24 of Council
      ensure that the competition rules were observed in the                   Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 con-
      market for the acquisition of rights to sports events but                cerning the Structural Funds of the Community. It main-
      solely in order to make sure that the complaint in question              tains in that regard that, inasmuch as the decision approv-
      was rejected.                                                            ing the project submitted by the applicant does not
                                                                               expressly prohibit the same, it must be assumed that
                                                                               expenditure incurred in preparing the project and
                                                                               obtaining the assistance are payable in addition to the
                                                                               amount of the aid itself. Second, it argues that no
                                                                               on-the-spot checks of any kind whatever, including sample
                                                                               checks, were carried out in relation to the applicant, as
Action brought on 15 September 1999 by the Asociación                         provided for in the aforesaid Article 23(2). Finally, and
de Fruticultores del Jalón Medio against the Commission                       without any admission by the applicant that it has
                   of the European Communities                                 perpetrated any irregular act of any kind whatsoever, the
                                                                               applicant is unable to understand why the Commission
                                                                               has not reduced the aid by the amount allegedly unused.
                           (Case T-207/99)
                                                                          — Disregard of the spirit and purpose of Council Regulation
                           (1999/C 333/76)                                     (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988 concerning
                                                                               the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund,
                                                                               inasmuch as the provisions contained in the final recital in
                    (Language of the Case: Spanish)                            the preamble thereto and the measures provided for in
                                                                               Article 2(2) thereof have been curtailed by the adoption of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      the rigorous measure involving the cancellation of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     EAGGF assistance previously granted.
European Communities on 15 September 1999 by the Asocia-
ción de Fruticultores del Jalón Medio, established at La Almunia        The applicant also criticises the fact that the contested decision
de Doña Godina, represented by Javier Mirón Martı́nez and               contains an inadequate statement of reasons.
David Esteban Arregui, of the Zaragoza Bar, with an address
for service at 4 Calle Bolonia, Zaragoza.