title: Case C-421/11 P: Order of the Court of 7 February 2012 — Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Competition — Cartel — Market for methacrylates — Concept of ‘undertaking’ — Presumption of decisive influence — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of sound administration — Extension of the authority of a final decision — Deterrent multiplying factor — Indivisible nature of the fine — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/12

         Order of the Court of 7 February 2012 — Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission
   (Case C-421/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Competition - Cartel - Market for methacrylates - Concept of ‘undertaking’ - Presumption of decisive influence - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration - Extension of the authority of a final decision - Deterrent multiplying factor - Indivisible nature of the fine - Unlimited jurisdiction)
   2012/C 133/21
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and A. Noël-Baron, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and B. Gencarelli, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 June 2011 in Case T-206/06 Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates) — Competition — Cartel — Infringement of the principles of conferral of powers and proportionality — Manifestly erroneous interpretation — Infringement of the rights of the defence, the principle of fairness and the principle of equality of arms — Obligation to state reasons — Infringement of the principle of sound administration

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.


21.4.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 118/43
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                InformationRemoval from the Register of Case
                                                                                T-116/98 (1)
The defendant, an official in Grade A 3, contests the decision                                  (2001/C 118/116)
of the appointing authority, taken in the context of the
reorganisation of DG SANCO, to reassign him to the post of
Adviser to the Head of Unit of Directorate D (Unit D4) ‘Food                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
law and biotechnology’, despite the fact that until then he had
carried out those duties for the Director General.
                                                                         By order of 14 December 2000, the President of the Second
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
He explains in that regard that his appointment to the post of           Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
adviser to the Director General was the result of an agreement           Case T-116/98, Compañı́a Trasmediterránea, S.A. v Com-
signed on 6 July 1993 between the applicant himself and the              mission of the European Communities.
Director General of DG Administration (formerly DG IX).
                                                                         (1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.98.
In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges the following
infringements:
—     infringement of the Staff Regulations, in particular
      Article 7(1), and the second and third paragraphs of
      Article 25, as well as failure to observe a number of
      general principles of law, such as the protection of                     Removal from the Register of Case T-244/99 (1)
      legitimate expectations, legal certainty, the duty to have
      regard for the welfare of officials, the principle pacta sunt                             (2001/C 118/117)
      observanda and those which require the appointing
      authority to adopt decisions only on the basis of relevant
      factors which are not vitiated by errors of fact or law.                              (Language of the case: Italian)
—     infringement of rules common to the Member States with             By order of 12 December 2000, the President of the Fifth
      regard to performance of contracts.                                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                         Case T-244/99, Sadam Abruzzo SpA v Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 20 of 22.10.2000.
       Removal from the Register of Case T-205/96 (1)
                       (2001/C 118/115)                                        Removal from the Register of Case T-245/99 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/118)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 15 January 2001, the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (Single Judge: J. Azizi), has ordered the           By order of 12 December 2000, the President of the Fifth
removal from the Register of Case T-205/96, Roland Bieber                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
v European Parliament.                                                   Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                         Case T-245/99, Sadam Castiglionese SpA v Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 20 of 22.01.2000.


title: Case C-18/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Philips Electronics UK Ltd (Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Tax relief — National legislation excluding the transfer of losses incurred in the national territory by a non-resident branch of a company established in another Member State to a company of the same group established in the national territory)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/4

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Philips Electronics UK Ltd
      (Case C-18/11) (1)

      (Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Tax relief - National legislation excluding the transfer of losses incurred in the national territory by a non-resident branch of a company established in another Member State to a company of the same group established in the national territory)
      (2012/C 331/06)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

         Defendant: Philips Electronics UK Ltd

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Corporation Tax — Tax relief — National legislation excluding the transfer of losses realised within the national territory by a non-resident branch of a company established in another Member State to a company established in the national territory belonging to the same group

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 43 EC must be interpreted as meaning that where, under the national legislation of a Member State, the possibility of transferring, by means of group relief and to a resident company, losses sustained by the permanent establishment in that Member State of a non-resident company is subject to a condition that those losses cannot be used for the purposes of foreign taxation, and where the transfer of losses sustained in that Member State by a resident company is not subject to any equivalent condition, such provisions constitute a restriction on the freedom of a non resident company to establish itself in another Member State.

                  2.

                  A restriction on the freedom of a non-resident company to establish itself in another Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, cannot be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest based on the objective of preventing the double use of losses or the objective of preserving a balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between the Member States or by a combination of those two grounds.

                  3.

                  In a situation such as that in the main proceedings, the national court must disapply any provision of the national legislation which is contrary to Article 43 EC.

         (1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.


title: Case T-631/15: Action brought on 11 November 2015 — Stena Line Scandinavia v Commission

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/22

         Action brought on 11 November 2015 — Stena Line Scandinavia v Commission
   (Case T-631/15)
   (2016/C 059/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Stena Line Scandinavia AB (Göteborg, Sweden) (represented by: P. Alexiadis, Solicitor, L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 23 July 2015 on State aid SA.39078 (2014/N) (Denmark) for the financing of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in finding that the funding granted to A/S Femern for the Danish rail hinterland connections does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in finding that the aid measures granted to Femern A/S for the Fixed Link are compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. The Commission erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project was of common European interest and in finding that the aid was necessary and proportionate. The Commission also erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment regarding the prevention of undue distortions of competition and balancing test and regarding the mobilisation of the State guarantees.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure. The applicant alleges that there are evidence of serious difficulties relating to the length and the circumstances of the preliminary investigation procedure. In addition, the applicant alleges an insufficient and incomplete analysis regarding the funding granted to Femern A/S for the Danish rail hinterland connections, regarding the common European interest of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project, regarding the necessity and proportionality of the aid and regarding the prevention of undue distortions of competition and balancing test.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to fulfil its duty to state reasons. The Commission failed to provide reasons in relation to the Danish rail hinterland connections, in relation to the common European interest of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project, in relation to the necessity and proportionality of the aid and in relation to the undue distortions of competition and balancing test.


title: Case C-481/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2014  — Jørn Hansson v Jungpflanzen Grünewald GmbH

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2014 — Jørn Hansson v Jungpflanzen Grünewald GmbH
   (Case C-481/14)
   (2015/C 034/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jørn Hansson

      Defendant: Jungpflanzen Grünewald GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the determination of the ‘reasonable compensation’ which an infringer must pay to the holder of a Community plant variety right pursuant to Article 94(1)(a) of [Regulation (EC) No 2100/94] (1) because he has effected the acts set out in Article 13(2) of that regulation without being entitled to do so, must, in addition to the normal market fee charged in the same sector for a licence to effect the acts specified in Article 13(2) of that regulation, a specific ‘infringer supplement’ also be applied on a flat-rate basis in every case? Does this follow from the second sentence of Article 13(1) of [Directive 2004/48/EC] (2)?

               2.

               In the determination of the ‘reasonable compensation’ which an infringer must pay to the holder of a Community plant variety right pursuant to Article 94(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 because he has effected the acts set out in Article 13(2) of that regulation without being entitled to do so, must, in addition to the normal market fee charged in the same sector for a licence to effect the acts specified in Article 13(2) of that regulation, account also be taken in an individual case of the following considerations or circumstances as factors that increase the compensation payable:

                           (a)

                           In the determination of the market licence fee by reference to licence agreements concluded and accounts settled for the variety in relation to which rights were infringed, the fact that, in the relevant period, as a result of special characteristics, the variety in question had a unique market position?
                           If consideration may be given to this factor in an individual case:
                           May the compensation be increased only if the characteristics giving rise to the variety’s unique position are included the description of the variety for the purposes of the plant variety right?

                           (b)

                           In the determination of the market licence fee by reference to licence agreements concluded and accounts settled for the variety in relation to which rights were infringed, the fact that, at the time when the infringing variety was introduced, the variety in relation to which rights were infringed had been very successfully marketed and, as a result, the infringer saved on the costs of introducing itself the infringing variety on to the market?

                           (c)

                           The fact that, in terms of time and having regard to the number of plants sold, the magnitude of the rights infringement in relation to the applicant’s variety was greater than average?

                           (d)

                           The consideration that the infringer, unlike a licensee, does not face the risk of having to pay a licence fee (that cannot be returned) in relation to the variety in question although the plant variety right for such variety is subject to legal challenge and may subsequently be declared null and void?

                           (e)

                           The fact that the infringer, unlike the usual situation in the case of licensees, was not required to account for sales on a quarterly basis?

                           (f)

                           The consideration that the holder of the plant variety right bears the risk in relation to inflation, which is of significance because of the significant period involved in pursuing legal action?

                           (g)

                           The consideration that, as a result of having to pursue legal action, the holder of the plant variety right, unlike the situation in which he obtains income through the granting of licences in relation to the variety in question, cannot plan the income to be obtained through this variety?

                           (h)

                           The consideration that, where rights relating to the variety in issue are infringed, the holder of those rights bears both the general risks associated with litigation and, ultimately, the risk that judgment may not be enforceable against the infringer?

                           (i)

                           The consideration that, in the case of an infringement of plant variety rights resulting from the unauthorised actions of the infringer, the holder of those rights is deprived of the freedom to determine whether the infringer may be allowed to use the variety in respect of which the holder holds the rights?

               3.

               In the determination of the ‘reasonable compensation’ which an infringer must pay to the holder of a Community plant variety right pursuant to Article 94(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 because he has effected the acts set out in Article 13(2) of that regulation without being entitled to do so, must account also be taken of interest payable at a usual rate of default interest on the annual compensation amount if it is to be presumed that contracting parties acting reasonably would have provided for the payment of interest of that kind?

               4.

               In the calculation of ‘further damage resulting from the act in question’ for which an infringer must compensate the holder of a Community plant variety right pursuant to the first sentence of Article 94(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 because he has effected the acts set out in Article 13(2) of that regulation without being entitled to do so, must the market licence fee normally charged in the same sector for the acts specified in Article 13(2) of that regulation be taken as the basis for that calculation?

               5.

               If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           In the calculation of the ‘further damage’ pursuant to the first sentence of Article 94(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on the basis of a market licence, must account be taken in an individual case of the considerations and circumstances set out in Question 2(a) to (i) and/or of the fact that, by reason of having to pursue legal action, the holder of the plant variety right is required personally to spend a commensurate amount of time in identifying the infringement and dealing with the matter and to carry out investigations regarding the infringement of the plant variety right to the extent to which this is usual in infringement cases of this kind such as to justify a premium over and above the market licence fee?

                           (b)

                           In the calculation of ‘further damage’ pursuant to the first sentence of Article 94(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on the basis of a market licence, must a specific ‘infringer supplement’ be applied on a flat-rate basis in every case? Does this follow from the second sentence of Article 13(1) of Directive 2004/48?

                           (c)

                           In the calculation of ‘further damage’ pursuant to the first sentence of Article 94(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on the basis of a market licence, must account be taken of interest payable at a usual rate of default interest on the annual compensation amount if it is to be presumed that contracting parties acting reasonably would have provided for the payment of interest of that kind?

               6.

               Must the first sentence of Article 94(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 be interpreted to mean that the infringer’s profit constitutes ‘further damage’ within the meaning of that provision which can be claimed in addition to reasonable compensation pursuant to Article 94(1) of that regulation or, in the event that the wrongdoing was intentional or negligent, can the infringer’s profit be claimed under the first sentence of Article 94(2) only as an alternative to reasonable compensation pursuant to Article 94(1)?

               7.

               Is the right to compensation for damage specified in Article 94(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 precluded by national legislation according to which the holder of the plant variety right ordered by decision having the force of law to pay the costs of interlocutory proceedings in which a temporary injunction was sought on the basis of an infringement of plant variety rights cannot claim reimbursement of those costs on the basis of arguments of substantive law even if, in the main proceedings relating to the same plant variety right infringement, his action is successful?

               8.

               Is the right to compensation for damage specified in Article 94(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 precluded by national legislation according to which an injured party, outside of the strict framework of an action for costs, cannot claim for his own time spent in the extra-judicial and judicial pursuit of a compensation claim if the time spent does not exceed what is normal in the circumstances?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights, OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1.

      (2)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45.


title: Case C-232/13 P: Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by SPLIA against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/18

         Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by SPLIA against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission
   (Case C-232/13 P)
   2013/C 207/30
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Società per l’industria alberghiera (SPLIA) (represented by: A. Bianchini and F. Busetto, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order of the General Court under appeal

               —

               Uphold the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly,

                           —

                           annul, in so far as is reasonable and in so far as it concerns the appellant, European Commission Decision No 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995;

                           —

                           in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as it imposes an obligation to recover the relief granted and in so far as it requires interest to be added to the amount of relief to be recovered for the periods taken into consideration in the judgment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant raises nine grounds of appeal:

                  First ground: the General Court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the measures in question did not confer any advantage upon their beneficiaries given their compensatory nature.

                  Second ground: the Court erred in not excluding, or at least assessing, the likelihood that the measures in question would affect competition and intra-Community trade.

                  Third ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(2)(b) EC (now Article 107(2)(b) TFEU) and Article 87(3)(b) EC (now Article 107(3)(b) TFEU) were inapplicable.

                  Fourth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 87(3)(c) EC (now Article 107(3)(c) TFEU) was inapplicable.

                  Fifth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(3)(d) and (e) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) and (e) TFEU) were inapplicable.

                  Sixth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 86(2) EC (now Article 106(2) TFEU) was inapplicable.

                  Seventh ground: the Court erred in not recognising the existence of the aid, thus infringing Article 88(3) EC (now Article 108(3) TFEU) and Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1)

                  Eighth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the recovery order.

                  Ninth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the addition of interest.

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


title: Case C-421/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (15th Chamber) by decision of that court of 28 June 2004 in the case of Matratzen Concord AG against Hukla Gemany SA

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (15th Chamber) by decision of that court of 28 June 2004 in the case of Matratzen Concord AG against Hukla Gemany SA
   (Case C-421/04)
   (2004/C 300/57)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Audiencia Provincial (Provincial Court) (15th Chamber), Barcelona (Spain) of 28 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 1 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Matratzen Concord AG against Hukla Gemany SA on the following question:
   ‘May the validity of the registration of a trade mark in a Member State, where that trade mark is devoid of any distinctive character or serves, in trade, to designate the product which it covers or its kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or other characteristics of goods, in the language of another Member State when that language is not the language spoken in the first Member State, as may be the case so far as concerns use of the Spanish trade mark “MATRATZEN” to designate mattresses and related products, constitute a disguised restriction on trade between Member States?’


title: Case C-613/11: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Aid granted by the Italian Republic to the Sardinian shipping sector — Commission Decision 2008/92/EC declaring that aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery from the beneficiaries — Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/10

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-613/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid granted by the Italian Republic to the Sardinian shipping sector - Commission Decision 2008/92/EC declaring that aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery from the beneficiaries - Failure to implement within the prescribed period)
   2013/C 156/14
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, agent, and S. Fiorentino, lawyer)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Articles 2 and 5 of Commission Decision 2008/92/EC of 10 July 2007 concerning an Italian State aid scheme to the Sardinian shipping (OJ 2008 L 29, p. 24) — Requirement for immediate and effective enforcement of Commission decisions — Inadequacy of the recovery procedure for the unlawful aid at issue

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries the State aid considered unlawful and incompatible with the internal market by Article 1 of Commission Decision 2008/92/EC of 10 July 2007 concerning an Italian State aid scheme to the Sardinian shipping, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 5 of that decision;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case C-110/08: Action brought on 11 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/8

         Action brought on 11 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-110/08)
   (2008/C 158/13)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Scharf and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria
   Form of order sought
   The applicant asks the Court to:

               —

               declare that, by still not having submitted to the Commission a complete list of proposed sites of Community importance or because the present list transmitted to the Commission is still incomplete with regard to six natural habitat types in the Alpine biogeographical region (3230, 6520, *7220, 8130, 9110 and 9180), and ten natural habitat types (*1530, 3240, *6110, *6230, 6520, 8150, 8220, 9150, 91F0 and *91I0) and twelve species (Vertigo moulinsiana, *Osmoderma eremita, Rutilus pigus, Triturus cristatus, Triturus carnifex, Rhinolophus hipposideros, Barbastella barastellus, Myotis emarginatus, Myotis myotis, Mannia triandra, Buxbaumia viridis, Drepanocladus vernicosus) in the Continental biogeographical region, the defendant has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In order to set up a coherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation according to a specified timetable, Article 4(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC requires the Member States to draw up, on the basis of the criteria set out in Annex III to the Directive and relevant scientific information, a list of sites hosting natural habitat types in Annex I and species in Annex II that are native to its territory. This national list is to include the sites which host the priority natural habitat types and species selected by the Member States on the basis of the criteria set out in Annex III. ‘Priority’ species and natural habitats are those which are in danger of disappearance and for the conservation of which the Community has particular responsibility in view of the proportion of their natural range which falls within the European territory of the Member States. This list was to be transmitted to the Commission within three years of the notification of the Directive, together with information on each site. The Directive entered into force for the Republic of Austria, as amended by the Treaty of Accession, upon its accession to the European Union on 1 January 1995, and the time-limit for transposition has in any case by now unquestionably expired.
   As the Republic of Austria has still not submitted to the Commission a complete list of proposed sites of Community importance, it has infringed its obligations under Article 4(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC.
   According to the Commission, the Republic of Austria relies on alleged procedural defects which make the Commission's action unlawful.
   The defendant's first objection relates to the so-called ‘reserves lists’, that is the lists of natural habitat types and species in respect of which the Commission has determined the network to be incomplete in its decisions on the lists of the sites of Community importance for the Alpine and Continental biogeographical regions. The defendant argues that as the drawing up of reserves lists is not provided for under the Directive, the Commission is not entitled to rely on them in order to accuse the defendant of an incomplete notification of areas of conservation.
   That argument cannot however be accepted. It is not at all relevant whether the directive regulates the drawing up of reserves lists or not; what matters is solely whether the national lists of suggested sites proposed to the Commission are complete. From the viewpoint of the Commission, the reserves lists represent merely stocktaking of the gaps in the process of drawing up a complete Natura 2000 network. While the Directive may not provide for such lists, it does not preclude them from being drawn up.
   By virtue of the notification of additional subsequent nominations, the defendant's argument that it cannot defend itself, because it is not able to understand the scientific evidence relied upon by the Commission, lacks substance: the defendant was obviously in a position to see for itself that further nominations were required. Moreover, the defendant was indisputably involved in the biogeographical procedures.
   The long period of time between the first reasoned opinion and the first and second supplementary reasoned opinions did not deny the defendant any procedural rights and cannot therefore be held against the Commission. The Commission refrained from bringing an action against the defendant immediately already in 1998 only because it had reason to believe that the defendant would soon comply with its obligation under the Directive. On a total of three occasions the defendant was given a time-limit within which to transmit the complete notification to the Commission. It therefore enjoyed an unusually long period of time within which it could both have commented on the Commission's allegations and dealt with the subject-matter of the action.
   The argument that the Commission's demands for subsequent nominations were made pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 4 of the Directive and therefore ‘could not at the same time be regarded as a continuation of the infringement procedure’ does not appear valid. Precisely because the demands for subsequent nominations took place according to Article 4 of the Directive, although the nomination phase should have long since been concluded, those demands for subsequent nominations provided clear indications of the fact that the defendant had still not complied with its obligation under Article 4. By virtue of the fact that the Commission accepted subsequent nominations over many years without bringing an action, the defendant obtained further opportunities to make the procedure devoid of purpose by fulfilling its obligations.
   It must be stated in conclusion that, contrary to the defendant's argument, the consultation procedure provided for in Article 5 of the Directive is not applicable. That procedure is envisaged only in exceptional cases in which a dispute between the Commission and a Member State on scientific grounds is to be resolved, but not in cases which, like the present case, are concerned only with incomplete notification of sites generally.
   The procedural objections put forward by the defendant are therefore not well founded.


title: Joined Cases F-7/11 and F-60/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — AX v ECB (Civil service — ECB Staff — Disciplinary proceedings — Suspension of a staff member without reduction of his basic salary — Withdrawal of a decision — Rights of the defence — Access to the file — Statement of reasons — Reasons for a decision — Allegation of breach of professional duties — Serious misconduct)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/27

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — AX v ECB
   (Joined Cases F-7/11 and F-60/11) (1)

   (Civil service - ECB Staff - Disciplinary proceedings - Suspension of a staff member without reduction of his basic salary - Withdrawal of a decision - Rights of the defence - Access to the file - Statement of reasons - Reasons for a decision - Allegation of breach of professional duties - Serious misconduct)
   2013/C 46/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: AX (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: in Case F-7/11 by P. Embley and E. Carlini, Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer and in Case F-60/11, by P. Embley and M. López Torres, Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Civil service — Application for annulment of the defendant’s decision suspending the applicant with effect from 5 August 2010 and compensation for non-material damage suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions in Cases F-7/11 and F-60/11;

               2.

               Declares that AX must bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011, p. 33 and OJ C 211, 16.7.2011, p. 35.


title: Case F-41/15 DISS II: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — FN, FP and FQ v CEPOL (Civil service — CEPOL staff — Temporary staff — Contract staff — Place of employment corresponding to the seat of CEPOL — Relocation of CEPOL to Budapest (Hungary) — Corresponding change in the place of employment of members of staff — Contractual consequences — Need for consent from members of staff — Correction coefficient applicable to the new place of employment — Legitimate expectations — Principle of sound administration)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — FN, FP and FQ v CEPOL
   (Case F-41/15 DISS II) (1)

   ((Civil service - CEPOL staff - Temporary staff - Contract staff - Place of employment corresponding to the seat of CEPOL - Relocation of CEPOL to Budapest (Hungary) - Corresponding change in the place of employment of members of staff - Contractual consequences - Need for consent from members of staff - Correction coefficient applicable to the new place of employment - Legitimate expectations - Principle of sound administration))
   (2016/C 191/68)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: FN, FP and FQ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Police College (represented by: F. Bánfi and R. Woldhuis, Agents, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decisions of the European Police College (CEPOL) which resulted in either the applicants resigning from their positions at the agency or the applicants relocating from London to Budapest and thereby suffering financial loss, and an application for damages in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly incurred.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders FN, FP and FQ to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Police College.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 01/06/2015, p. 28.


title: Case C-544/09 P: Appeal brought on 22 December 2009 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2009 in Case T-21/06 Germany v Commission

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/25

         Appeal brought on 22 December 2009 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2009 in Case T-21/06 Germany v Commission
   (Case C-544/09 P)
   2010/C 51/41
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, J. Möller and B. Klein, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 6 October 2009 in Case T-21/06 Germany v Commission;

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2005)3903 of 9 November 2005 on the State Aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This appeal relates to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities by which the action brought by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission’s decision of 9 November 2005 in State aid case C-25/2004 on the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg was dismissed as unfounded. The Commission had, in that decision, found the aid to be incompatible with the common market (Article 107(3)(c) TFEU).
   The Federal Republic of Germany puts forward five grounds of appeal by which it alleges that the Court failed to recognise a misuse of powers on the part of the Commission and, accordingly, that it erred in dismissing the action.
   First, the Court erred in denying the incentive effect of the measure by focusing only on the very limited period of the switch-over from analogue terrestrial transmission to DVB-T, instead of considering the cost of the measure as a whole to those broadcasters in receipt of aid. In addition to the switch-over itself, the measure as a whole includes an obligation to maintain broadcasting output via DVB-T for a period of five years, irrespective of the degree of market acceptance which is difficult to forecast. Accordingly, the ancillary costs in respect of this mandatory transmission period should also be taken into account.
   Second, the Court erred in overextending the Commission’s assessment criteria under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU by accepting that the Commission could dismiss the suitability of the aid measure solely on the ground that the same objective would be attained by means of alternative regulatory measures. The comparison with alternative measures is not, according to the purpose of the TFEU’s State aid control provisions, within the parameters of what the Commission may review. In that context, the Federal Government also complains that the Court is passing on to the Member State the burden of proving that the alternative measures suggested by the Commission would have been ineffective from the outset. This is contrary to the principle of legal certainty, the general principles of the allocation of the burden of proof and the purpose of the control of State aid.
   Third, the Court misjudged the relevance of the fundamental rights of the European Union when considering Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, rights which, as part of primary law, are binding on all institutions of the European Union in respect of all acts. To accept that the mere reference to alternative regulatory measures allegedly available is sufficient for approval of an aid measure to be refused is to overlook the fact that regulatory measures interfere with the fundamental right of the freedom of undertakings to pursue an economic activity. This, at the very least, should be taken into consideration, but that did not happen in this case.
   Fourth, by its reference to alternative regulatory measures, the Court erred in its interpretation of the concepts of the internal market and the effect on trading conditions in Article 107(3) TFEU, in that it failed to recognise that regulatory measures also affect competition. The broad assumption that any regulatory measure would have a lesser effect on such legal interests than aid means that an unlawfully stringent standard is imposed.
   Fifth, the Federal Republic of Germany objects to the fact that the Court adopted the principle of technological neutrality developed by the Commission without recognising that its effect is to dismiss the purpose of the measure pursued by the German authorities in this case. Technological neutrality is an appropriate criterion against which to review compatibility only if the switch-over to digital broadcasting is, by itself, the purpose of the support. In the case of support for the switch-over to DVB-T in Berlin-Brandenburg, however, it was that platform specifically which, for various reasons, was intended to be supported, no support being required for cable or satellite. Member States have a degree of discretion in setting the legitimate objective of aid measures.


title: Case T-90/10: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014  — Ferriere Nord v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils — Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Fixing of prices and payment terms — Limiting or controlling output or sales — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Competence of the Commission — Rights of the defence — Finding of an infringement — Fines — Repeated infringements — Extenuating circumstances — Cooperation — Full jurisdiction)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — Ferriere Nord v Commission
   (Case T-90/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Fixing of prices and payment terms - Limiting or controlling output or sales - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Competence of the Commission - Rights of the defence - Finding of an infringement - Fines - Repeated infringements - Extenuating circumstances - Cooperation - Full jurisdiction))
   (2015/C 034/27)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Ferriere Nord SpA (Osoppo, Italy) (represented by: W. Viscardini and G. Donà, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by R. Sauer and B. Gencarelli, and subsequently by M. Sauer and R. Striani, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Moretto, lawyer)

      Re:

   Primarily, application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 [CS] (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, readoption), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, and in the alternative application for partial annulment of that decision and application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Fixes the amount of the fine imposed on Ferriere Nord SpA at EUR 3 4 21  440;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Ferriere Nord to bear its own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by the European Commission; orders the Commission to bear one-quarter of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case C-406/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 24 July 2015 — Petya Milkova v Agentsia za privatizatsia i sledprivatizatsionen kontrol

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 24 July 2015 — Petya Milkova v Agentsia za privatizatsia i sledprivatizatsionen kontrol
   (Case C-406/15)
   (2015/C 337/09)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven administrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Petya Milkova

      Defendant: Agentsia za privatizatsia i sledprivatizatsionen control

      Other party to the proceedings: Varhovna administrativna prokuratura

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 5(2) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities permit the Member States to provide by law for specific advance protection against dismissal only for persons with disabilities who are employees, and not for civil servants with the same disabilities?

               2.

               Do Article 4 and the further provisions of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation permit a national rule providing for specific protection against dismissal for persons with disabilities who are employees, but not for civil servants with the same disabilities?

               3.

               Does Article 7 of Directive 2000/78 permit persons with disabilities who are employees, but not civil servants with the same disabilities, to be afforded specific advance protection?

               4.

               If the first and third questions are answered in the negative: In light of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the present case, is it necessary in order to comply with the provisions of international and Community law that the specific advance protection against dismissal for persons with disabilities who are employees provided for by the national legislator also be applied to civil servants with the same disabilities?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Case T-173/00: Action brought on 28 June 2000 by KWS Saat AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
9.9.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 259/29
Action brought on 28 June 2000 by KWS Saat AG against                   Action brought on 4 July 2000 by Jan Pflugradt against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                        the European Central Bank
                  (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (Case T-178/00)
                        (Case T-173/00)
                        (2000/C 259/52)                                                          (2000/C 259/53)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                 An action against the European Central Bank was brought
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                  before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
28 June 2000 by KWS Saat AG, of Einbeck (Federal Republic               on 4 July 2000 by Jan Pflugradt, residing in Frankfurt am Main
of Germany), represented by Gert Würtenberger, Rechtsanwalt,            (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Norbert Pflüger,
of Wuesthoff & Wuesthoff, Munich (Federal Republic of                   Regina Steiner and Silvia Mittländer, Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt
Germany).                                                               am Main (Federal Republic of Germany).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     refer the matter back for further consideration to the
      Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the            (1) order the European Central Bank to revoke the applicant’s
      Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);                              staff Report for 1999 and to remove it from his personal
                                                                              file without replacing it with any other document;
      alternatively,
—     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of               (2) order the European Central Bank to have a new staff
                                                                              report drawn up for the applicant for 1999 by other,
      19 April 2000 in the appeal proceedings registered under
      No R 282/1999-2 concerning application No 000 773                       unbiased persons;
      630 for registration as a Community trade mark of the
      colour mark ‘Orange’, declare the mark to be registerable,        (3) order the European Central Bank, pursuant to contract,
      and direct the Office to register the mark in the register              to provide the applicant with work corresponding to
      of Community trade marks.                                               the activities forming the subject-matter of his job
                                                                              description;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         (4) to (7) order the European Central Bank to assign to the
                                                                                applicant a series of specific responsibilities;
The trade mark con-           Colour mark ‘Orange’ (HKS7) —
cerned:                       application No 773 630
                                                                        (8) declare that the European Central Bank is obliged to
Goods or service con-         Goods and services in Classes 7,                provide the applicant with work corresponding to the
cerned:                       11, 31 and 42 (inter alia, prep-                activities set out in his job description and, in so doing,
                              aration equipment for seeds, agri-              to have regard to the contractually defined activities
                              cultural and forestry products)                 forming the subject-matter of points (4) to (7) of his
                                                                              application;
Decision         contested    Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of           examiner                                  (9) order the defendant to pay the costs.
Appeal:
Grounds of claim:             — incorrect reasons for the
                                  decision of the Board of              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                  Appeal
                              — legally erroneous finding by            The applicant is an employee of the ECB. He contests the
                                  the Board of Appeal that the          validity in law of a staff report prepared by one of his superiors
                                  mark has no distinctive               for the year 1999 and claims that a fresh staff report should
                                  character                             be drawn up for that period. He maintains that his staff report
                              — legally incorrect acceptance by         contains incorrect statements which prejudice his personal
                                  the Board of Appeal of the            rights and impede his advancement in his career. In addition,
                                  need for the term to be kept          the defendant has infringed the applicant’s contractual right to
                                  freely available for use by the       be provided with employment.
                                  world at large.


title: Case C-48/08: Action brought on 11 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/18

         Action brought on 11 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-48/08)
   (2008/C 92/34)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell, Agent)

      Defendant: Ireland
   The applicants claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/59/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 July 2003 on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers, amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and Council Directive 91/439/EEC and repealing Council Directive 76/914/EEC (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 10 September 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 226, p. 4.


title: Case T-19/02: Action brought on 25 January 2002 by Albert Albrecht GmbH + Co. KG and 17 others against the Commission of the European Communities and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products

text:
4.5.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/51
In addition, the applicant pleads a failure to provide a statement       pharmacologically active substance benzathine penicillin. That
of reasons and infringement of the rights of defence, as well as         substance is a general antibiotic used in veterinary injectable
non-compliance with the principles of sound administration               medicinal products for food producing animals.
and with the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests
of officials. Lastly, according to the applicant, there has
been an infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,
inasmuch as the Commission did not adopt a decision within               The application is lodged against the decisions of the European
a reasonable time.                                                       Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) of
                                                                         15 November 2001, requesting the applicants, on the basis of
                                                                         Article 20 of the Directive 81/851 (1), to reply to questions put
                                                                         by the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP)
                                                                         regarding medicinal products containing benzathine penicillin
                                                                         by 25 March 2002 in the framework of a referral procedure
                                                                         initiated by the Irish authorities and each to pay a fee of
                                                                         10 000 Euro to the EMEA.
Action brought on 25 January 2002 by Albert Albrecht
GmbH + Co. KG and 17 others against the Commission
of the European Communities and the European Agency                      In support of their conclusions, the applicants submit that:
           for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products
                                                                         —     The contested decision infringes Article 20 of Directive
                         (Case T-19/02)                                        81/851, which is only applicable in the framework of the
                                                                               mutual recognition procedure and not to strictly national
                        (2002/C 109/99)                                        marketing authorisations.
                   (Language of the case: English)                       —     As the Directives are addressed only to Member States
                                                                               and are therefore not able to impose obligations directly
                                                                               on individuals, the Decision in question should be
                                                                               annulled, as Article 20 of the Directive 81/851 cannot
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      constitute a legal basis upon which to oblige the Appli-
ties and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal                   cants to comply. The EMEA cannot therefore oblige the
Products was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 applicants to pay an arbitration fee of 10 000 Euro.
European Communities on 25 January 2002 by Albert
Albrecht GmbH + Co. KG and 17 others, represented by Mr
Dirk Brinckman and Mr Denis Waelbroeck of Liedekerke                     —     Even if were to be accepted that the arbitration procedure
Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels (Belgium).                                   under Article 20 could be applied to veterinary medicinal
                                                                               products authorised under purely national authorisation
                                                                               procedures, which is not the case, the procedure can in
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    any event only affect on the marketing authorisation that
                                                                               is directly affected by the referral. Moreover, it should
—     annul the contested Decisions requesting the applicants                  follow from the very wording of Article 20 that it is
      to submit data under the referral procedure of Article 20                only the person responsible for placing the veterinary
      of Directive 81/851 and requesting them each to pay the                  medicinal product concerned on the market who is
      sum of 10 000 Euro;                                                      bound to forward to the CVMP all available information
                                                                               relating to the matter in question. The procedure under
                                                                               Article 20 should not permit holders of national authoris-
—     alternatively, declare the contested Decisions null and                  ations of different medicinal products to be compelled to
      void;                                                                    submit data.
—     declare the Notice to Applicants illegal in so far as any of
      its provisions could be read as implying that the referral         —     The arbitration procedure could apply in the absence of
      procedure under Article 20 is applicable to marketing                    a mutual recognition procedure, which is not the case: at
      authorisations issued under national law;                                most it allows information to be requested from the
                                                                               holder of the national marketing authorisation whose
—     order the defendants to bear the costs.                                  product is directly concerned by the referral procedure.
                                                                         (1) Council Directive 81/851/EEC of 28 September 1981 on the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                             veterinary medicinal products (OJ L 317, 6.11.1981, p. 1).
The applicants in the present case are all companies holding a
national marketing authorisation issued by national competent
authorities for a veterinary medicinal product containing the


title: Case F-95/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings signed by means of a stamp reproducing a lawyer’s signature or other means of reproduction — Action lodged out of time — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/28

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-95/12)
   (Civil service - Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings signed by means of a stamp reproducing a lawyer’s signature or other means of reproduction - Action lodged out of time - Manifestly inadmissible)
   2013/C 71/48
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision to withhold amounts from the applicant’s invalidity allowance for the purpose of recovering the sum of EUR 3 000 paid to the applicant in compliance with an judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal which was subsequently set aside by the General Court of the European Union.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs.


title: Case T-60/01: Action brought on 13 March 2001 by Marie-Josée Bollendorff against the European Parliament

text:
C 173/34              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.6.2001
Action brought on 13 March 2001 by Marie-Josée Bollen-                   Action brought on 19 March 2001 by Afrikanische Frucht-
            dorff against the European Parliament                        Compagnie GmbH against the Council of the European
                                                                         Union and the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-60/01)
                                                                                (Case T-64/01)
                        (2001/C 173/61)                                                           (2001/C 173/62)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: German)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before             An action against the Council of the European Union and the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  Commission of the European Communities was brought
on 13 March 2000 by Marie-Josée Bollendorff, residing at                 before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Bertrange (Luxembourg), represented by Laurent Mosar, avo-               on 19 March 2001 by Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie GmbH,
cat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                          established in Hamburg (Germany), represented by Gerrit
                                                                         Schohe, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                         bourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision by which the appointing authority
      took the view that the applicant’s absence from 21 March           —     order the defendants to pay to the applicant
      2000 to 30 April 2000 was irregular and deducted 194                     EUR 1 358 228 together with interest thereon at the rate
      working hours from her annual leave entitlement;                         of 3,75 % from the date of pronouncement of judgment
                                                                               and reasonable compensation for the inflation which has
                                                                               occurred since 1 January 1999, at the further rate of at
—     order the European Parliament to pay the costs.                          least 1,1 % per annum on EUR 1 358 228 ;
                                                                         —     declare that the defendants are obliged to compensate the
                                                                               applicant for all further loss and damage suffered or to be
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                suffered by it as a result of Regulations (EC)
                                                                               Nos 1637/98 and 2362/98 and, in particular, the rules
                                                                               contained therein;
The applicant’s incapacity for work, certified by two doctors,
was contested by the institution’s medical officer. Those two            —     reserve its decision as to costs.
doctors then confirmed their certificates, and the applicant
was absent during the period covered by the certificates. Later
on, the applicant discovered that the time for which she had
been absent during the period in question had been deducted              Pleas in law and main arguments
from her annual leave entitlement.
                                                                         The applicant has for many years sold bananas from third
                                                                         countries to customers in Austria, Finland and Sweden.
In support of her claim, the applicant maintains that the
deduction decision was adopted in breach of Articles 59 and
60 [of the Staff Regulations] and that it therefore has no legal         The action concerns the calculation of the applicant’s reference
basis whatever.                                                          quantities for 1999. According to the applicant, that calcu-
                                                                         lation is characterised by three special features which derogate
                                                                         from the rules governing the organisation of the market
                                                                         applying in respect of the years prior to 1999, and as a result
According to the applicant, no decision concerning a
                                                                         of which the market operators existing in the Community up
deduction from her annual leave entitlement was notified to
                                                                         until 31 December 1994 have been placed at a disadvantage,
her by the head of the Personnel Division, and the appointing
                                                                         whilst advantageous treatment has been afforded to operators
authority at no time communicated to the applicant any
                                                                         in the new Member States. First, the rule governing the
decision which would have enabled her to comment on the
                                                                         determination of the reference period has been changed.
fact that the certificates were contested. Consequently, the
                                                                         Next, in calculating the reference quantities for 1999, the
European Parliament has infringed Article 25 of the Staff
                                                                         Community proceeded on the basis of excessively high quanti-
Regulations.
                                                                         ties in so far as concerns market operators in Austria, Finland
                                                                         and Sweden. Lastly, although the reference quantities for 1999
                                                                         should have been calculated in accordance with Articles 3 and
                                                                         5 of Regulation No 1442/93 (1), they were in fact calculated in
                                                                         accordance with the criterion of the so-called ‘actual importer’.


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of  14 July 2005  in Case C-70/04: Swiss Confederation v Commission of the European Communities (External relations — EC-Switzerland Agreement on air transport — Action for annulment brought by a non-member State — Swiss Confederation — Commission Decision 2004/12/EC — German measures relating to the approaches to Zurich airport — Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 — Council Decision 2004/407/EC, Euratom of  26 April 2004  amending Articles 51 and 54 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice — Referral to the Court of First Instance)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/8

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 14 July 2005
   in Case C-70/04: Swiss Confederation v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (External relations - EC-Switzerland Agreement on air transport - Action for annulment brought by a non-member State - Swiss Confederation - Commission Decision 2004/12/EC - German measures relating to the approaches to Zurich airport - Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 - Council Decision 2004/407/EC, Euratom of 26 April 2004 amending Articles 51 and 54 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice - Referral to the Court of First Instance)
   (2005/C 296/15)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-70/04: Swiss Confederation, (lawyers: S. Hirsbrunner and U. Soltész) against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: F. Benyon, M. Huttunen and M. Niejahr), supported by: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: C.-D. Quassowski and A. Tiemann, and by T. Masing, lawyer) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, read in conjunction with Article 20 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on air transport, brought on 13 February 2004 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 14 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Case C-70/04 is referred to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.04.2004


title: Case T-373/17: Action brought on 9 June 2017 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Fulia Trading (LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/37

         Action brought on 9 June 2017 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Fulia Trading (LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE)
   (Case T-373/17)
   (2017/C 256/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fulia Trading Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘LV BET ZAKŁADY BUKMACHERSKIE’ — Application for registration No 13 514 534

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 in Case R 1567/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and thus refuse registration to the contested mark;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings;

               —

               order Fulia to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of the principle of legal certainty.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 23 May 1996 in Case C-326/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Brussels): A. Maas & Co. NV v. Belgische Dienst voor Bedrijfsleven en Landbouw, now the Belgisch Interventie en Restitutiebureau (Food aid - Security - Obligations of the successful tenderer - Reference price)

text:
No C 197/8            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        6 . 7 . 96
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          abovementioned regulation have been slightly infringed,
                       ( Fourth Chamber )                                    even where the consignee has not made any observations
                                                                             in that regard.
                         of 23 May 1996
in Case C-326/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from             f 1 ) OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Brussels ): A. Maas & Co.
NV v. Belgische Dienst voor Bedrijfsleven en Landbouw,
    now the Belgisch Interventie en Restitutiebureau ( ] )
(Food aid — Security — Obligations of the successful
                  tenderer — Reference price)
                          ( 96/C 197/13 )
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                (Language of the case: Dutcb)
                                                                                of 23 May 1996
                                                                       in Case C-331/94 : Commission of the European
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                          Communities v. Hellenic Republic (*)
         published in the European Court Reports)                      (VAT — Taxation of transportation ofpersons, round trips
                                                                                by sea and package tours)
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/14 )
In Case C-326/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg
( Court of First Instance ), Brussels for a preliminary ruling in                         (Language of the case: Greek)
the proceedings pending before that court between A. Maas
& Co . NV and Belgische Dienst voor Bedrijfsleven en
Landbouw,        now the          Belgisch     Interventie- en         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Restitutiebureau on the interpretation of Commission                              published in the European Court Reports)
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1824/80 of 11 July 1980 opening an
invitation to tender for the mobilization of common wheat
                                                                       In Case C-331 /94 : Commission of the European
as food aid for the Republic of Benin ( OJ L 178 , 1980 , p . 5 )      Communities (Agent: Dimitrios Gouloussis ) v. Hellenic
— the Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of C. N.                      Republic ( Agents: Panagiotis Mylonopoulos and Anna
Kakouris, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn                   Rokofyllou ) — application for a declaration that, by
( Rapporteur ) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo                exempting certain transport services from value added tax
Colomer,     Advocate-General;        D.    Louterman-Hubeau,          and by charging that tax on certain services supplied by tour
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment            operators, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
on 23 May 1996 , the operative part of which is as                     obligations under Articles 2, 9 (2 ) ( b ) and 26 of the Sixth
follows :
                                                                       Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                       harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                       turnover taxes — common system of value added tax :
1 . Article 6 (1 ) of Commission Regulation (EEC)                      uniform basis of assessment ( OJ L 145 , 1977, p . 1 ) — the
    No 1824/80 of 11 July 1980 opening an invitation to                Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composèd of D. A. O. Edward,
    tender for the mobilization of common wheat as food                President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur), P.
    aid for the Republic of Benin is to be interpreted as              Jann, L. Sevon and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola,
    meaning that observance of the quality standards                   Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
    referred to in Article 7 of that regulation constitutes an         Registrar, gave a judgment on 23 May 1996, in which it:
    obligation which the successful tenderer must fulfil as
    regards the carrying out of the operations referred to in
    Article 6 (1 ) in order for the security to be released;           1 . declares that, by exempting from value added tax sea
                                                                             voyages in Greek-flagged vessels which do not put in at a
                                                                             foreign port as regards the part of the journey within
2 . Article S of Regulation (EEC) No 1824/80 is to be                        territorial waters, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
    interpreted as meaning that the successful tenderer                      fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 9 (2) (b) of the
    incurs liability for shipment on board which takes place                 Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977
    after expiry ofthe prescribed time-limit where he did not                on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States
    fix the timing of delivery with the agent, twice refused                 relating to turnover taxes — common system of value
    vessels which the agent offered and advised the agent on                 added tax: uniform basis of assessment;
    29 August 1980 that the latter should make a vessel
    available for loading by 1 September 1980 at the                   2 , orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
    latest;
                                                                       (M OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
3 . Article 6 (1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 1824/80 is to be
    interpreted as meaning that the security is forfeited
    where the quality standards referred to in Article 7 of the


title: Case T-79/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 9 June 2010 — COLT Télécommunications France v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — Operation of a very-high-speed broadband electronic communications network — Compensation for public service costs — Decision finding that the notified measure does not constitute aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/39

         Order of the President of the General Court of 9 June 2010 — COLT Télécommunications France v Commission
   (Case T-79/10 R)
   (Application for interim measures - State aid - Operation of a very-high-speed broadband electronic communications network - Compensation for public service costs - Decision finding that the notified measure does not constitute aid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)
   2010/C 209/60
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: COLT Télécommunications France SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Debroux, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission (represented by B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2009) 7426 final of 30 September 2009 on a plan to grant compensation for public service costs of EUR 59 million for the establishment and operation of a very-high-speed broadband electronic communications network in the department of Hauts-de-Seine (France).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-143/10: Action brought on 30 March 2010 — Ben Ri Electrónica v OHIM — Sacopa (LT LIGHT-THECNO)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/48

         Action brought on 30 March 2010 — Ben Ri Electrónica v OHIM — Sacopa (LT LIGHT-THECNO)
   (Case T-143/10)
   2010/C 134/78
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Ben Ri Electrónica SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sacopa SAU (Sant Jaume de Llierca (Girona), Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM and reject Community mark No 4 520 193;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sacopa SAU

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contains the word element ‘LT’ (Application No 4 520 193) for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 11.
   Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The Applicant.
   Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark (No 13 375) and Spanish figurative marks (Nos 1 719 729 and 1 719 730) composed of the juxtaposition of and ‘L’ and a ‘T’ superimposed on a circle for goods in Classes 9 and 11.
   Decision of the Opposition Division: Partial rejection of the opposition.
   Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision and rejection of the opposition.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case F-68/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 September 2011 — Behnke v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — 2009 appraisal and promotion exercise — Statement of reasons of the opinion of the Joint Appraisal and Promotion Committee — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/37

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 September 2011 — Behnke v Commission
   (Case F-68/10) (1)

   (Civil Service - Officials - 2009 appraisal and promotion exercise - Statement of reasons of the opinion of the Joint Appraisal and Promotion Committee - Manifest error of assessment)
   2011/C 340/74
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Thorsten Behnke (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Bersheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision to classify the applicant in performance group II and to award him 5 promotion points in his career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2008.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, one quarter of the costs incurred by Mr Behnke;

               3.

               Orders Mr Behnke to pay three quarters of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.10, p. 74.


title: Case T-118/06: Action brought on  12 April 2006  — Zuffa v OHIM

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/48

         Action brought on 12 April 2006 — Zuffa v OHIM
   (Case T-118/06)
   (2006/C 131/89)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Zuffa, LLC (Las Vegas, USA) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, M. Blair, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               The decision of the First Board of Appeal dated 30 January 2006 in Case R 931/2005-1 dismissing the appeal under Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) CTMR shall be annulled.

               —

               The Office shall bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 25, 28 and 41 — application No 2 789 568

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application in respect of all the goods and services applied for

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the examiners decision, rejection of the trade mark applied for pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and remission of the case to the examiner for further examination pursuant to Article 7(3) of the Regulation

      Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal erred in equating the words ULTIMATE FIGHTING to the identification of the name of a particular sport and in finding that their meaning was clear and unequivocal. The Board of Appeal therefore erred in holding the trade mark applied for descriptive and non-distinctive.


title: Case C-120/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Deutschland) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. m.b.H. v Tetyana Bonchyk

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Deutschland) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. m.b.H. v Tetyana Bonchyk
   (Case C-120/13)
   2013/C 164/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Wedding

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. m.b.H.

      Defendant: Tetyana Bonchyk

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (1) be interpreted to mean that a defendant may apply for a review by the competent court of the European order for payment also where the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him? In those circumstances, may recourse be had, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(1) or Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006?

               2.

               Furthermore, if the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
               What are the legal consequences for the procedure if the application for review is successful; may recourse be had in that connection, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(3) or Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.