title: Case C-628/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 24 November 2015 — The Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/38

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 24 November 2015 — The Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-628/15)
   (2016/C 038/52)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme

      Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

      Questions referred

               1.

               Given that the Court, in its answer to Question 4 in the judgment of 12 December 2006 in Case C-446/04 Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2006] ECR 1-11753, determined that Articles 43 and 56 of the EC Treaty — now Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — precluded legislation of a Member State which allows resident companies distributing dividends to their shareholders which have their origin in foreign-sourced dividends received by them to elect to be taxed under a regime which permits them to recover advance corporation tax paid, but, first, obliges those companies to pay that advance corporation tax and subsequently to claim repayment and, secondly, does not provide a tax credit for their shareholders, whereas those shareholders would have received such a tax credit in the case of a distribution made by a resident company which had its origin in nationally-sourced dividends: are any rights under EU law conferred on those shareholders themselves, whether under Article 63 TFEU or otherwise, in cases where they are the recipients of the dividends elected to be paid under that regime; in particular where a shareholder is resident in the same Member State as the company distributing the dividends?

               2.

               If the shareholder referred to in Question 1 does not itself have rights under Article 63 TFEU, is it entitled to rely on any infringement of rights under Article 49 or Article 63 TFEU of the company distributing the dividend?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 or Question 2 is that the shareholder has rights under or can rely on EU law, does EU law impose any requirements as to the remedy to be provided to the shareholder under domestic law?

               4.

               Does it make any difference to the Court's answer to the above questions that:

                           a)

                           the shareholder is not liable to income tax in the Member State on any dividends received, with the consequence that in the case of a distribution made by a resident company outside the above regime the tax credit to which the shareholder is entitled under domestic legislation may result in a payment of the tax credit to the shareholder by the Member State;

                           b)

                           the national court has decided that the infringement of EU law by the domestic legislation in question was not sufficiently serious so as to give rise to a liability of the Member State in damages in favour of the company distributing the dividends, under the principles established under Joint Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie due Pecheur SA v Federal Republic of Germany and The Queen v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Limited and Others [1996] ECR 1-1029; or that

                           c)

                           in some cases but not all, the company distributing the dividends under the above regime may have increased the amount of its distributions paid to all shareholders to provide a cash sum equivalent to that which would be achieved by an exempt shareholder from a payment of dividends outside the regime?


title: Case C-495/13 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2015 — GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Figurative mark in colour, consisting of the verbal components ‘LIBERTE american blend’ on a red background — Opposition by the holder of the Community trade mark ‘La LIBERTAD’ — Refusal of registration)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/7

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2015 — GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH
   (Case C-495/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Figurative mark in colour, consisting of the verbal components ‘LIBERTE american blend’ on a red background - Opposition by the holder of the Community trade mark ‘La LIBERTAD’ - Refusal of registration))
   (2015/C 146/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schultz, Rechtsanwältinnen)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent), Villiger Söhne GmbH (represented by: B. Pikolin, Rechtsanwätin)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Case C-443/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court — Ireland) — David L. Parris v Trinity College Dublin and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 2 — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and age — National pension scheme — Payment of a survivor’s benefit to the civil partner — Condition — Partnership contracted before the 60th birthday of the member of the scheme — Civil partnership — Not possible in the Member State concerned before 2010 — Existing stable relationship — Article 6(2) — Justification of differences of treatment on grounds of age)

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court — Ireland) — David L. Parris v Trinity College Dublin and Others
   (Case C-443/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2 - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and age - National pension scheme - Payment of a survivor’s benefit to the civil partner - Condition - Partnership contracted before the 60th birthday of the member of the scheme - Civil partnership - Not possible in the Member State concerned before 2010 - Existing stable relationship - Article 6(2) - Justification of differences of treatment on grounds of age))
   (2017/C 030/10)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Labour Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: David L. Parris

      Defendants: Trinity College Dublin, Higher Education Authority, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Department of Education and Skills

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that a national rule which, in connection with an occupational benefit scheme, makes the right of surviving civil partners of members to receive a survivor’s benefit subject to the condition that the civil partnership was entered into before the member reached the age of 60, where national law did not allow the member to enter into a civil partnership before reaching that age, does not constitute discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

               2.

               Articles 2 and 6(2) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in connection with an occupational benefit scheme, makes the right of surviving civil partners of members to receive a survivor’s benefit subject to the condition that the civil partnership was entered into before the member reached the age of 60, where national law did not allow the member to enter into a civil partnership before reaching that age, does not constitute discrimination on grounds of age.

               3.

               Articles 2 and 6(2) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that a national rule such as that at issue in the main proceedings is not capable of creating discrimination as a result of the combined effect of sexual orientation and age, where that rule does not constitute discrimination either on the ground of sexual orientation or on the ground of age taken in isolation.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/31

         Removal from the register of Case C-156/02 (1)

   (2005/C 217/61)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 6 June 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-156/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling Bundessozialgericht): Maria Purschke v Landesversicherungsanstalt Oberbayern.

      (1)  OJ C 180 of 27.07.2002.


title: Case C-36/10: Action brought on 22 January 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/17

         Action brought on 22 January 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-36/10)
   2010/C 80/32
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures to correctly transpose the second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (1), as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 (2), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action, the European Commission claims that the defendant did not correctly implement the provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Directive 96/82/EC in the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Brussels-Capital Region). In order to prevent major accidents and to limit the consequences of such accidents, that provision creates the obligation that the Member States ensure that their land use takes account of the need, in the long term, to maintain appropriate distances between establishments covered by the directive and areas such as residential areas, buildings and areas of public use or leisure areas covered by Article 12 of that directive. However, it is apparent from an examination of the provisions implemented by the authorities of Brussels that those provisions concern only the procedures for granting planning permission or for division into plots, which inevitably takes place after the creation of a land-use policy. Thus, the regional measures are incomplete in so far as they do not cover the procedures for defining and implementing that policy.

      (1)  OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13.

      (2)  Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 97).


title: Case T-127/12: Action brought on 22 March 2012 — Free v OHIM — Noble Gaming (FREEVOLUTION TM)

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/23

         Action brought on 22 March 2012 — Free v OHIM — Noble Gaming (FREEVOLUTION TM)
   (Case T-127/12)
   2012/C 165/40
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Free (Paris, France) (represented by: Y. Coursin, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Noble Gaming Ltd (Prague, Czech Republic)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 December 2011 in Case R 2326/2010-2;

               —

               hold that the earlier marks relied on and in particular the French word mark FREE No 1734391 are similar to the mark at issue ‘FREEVOLUTION’ within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) and all the more so within the meaning of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               hold that the application for registration of the mark at issue must be rejected on the basis of Article 8(1)(b) and all the more so in accordance with Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009; and

               —

               order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, both before the General Court and the OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘FREEVOLUTION’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark applied for No 8206443.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: French figurative mark ‘free LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX’ No 99785839 for goods and services in Classes 9 and 38; French word mark ‘FREE’ No 1734391; French word mark ‘FREE MOBILE’ No 73536224 for goods in Class 9; Trade name ‘FREE’ used in business in France; domain name ‘FREE.FR’ used in business.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 in so far as there is a distinction between how the similarity of the signs should be assessed under each of those provisions; infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in so far as there is indeed a likelihood of confusion with regard to the trade marks at issue; and, infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 in so far as there is a link between the marks ‘FREE’ and ‘FREEVOLUTION’ such that the mark with a reputation ‘FREE’ is prejudiced by the existence of the trade mark at issue.


title: Case T-126/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/41

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-126/06) (1)

   (2008/C 327/74)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.


title: Case T-738/15: Action brought on 18 December 2015 — Aurubis and Others v Commission

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/43

         Action brought on 18 December 2015 — Aurubis and Others v Commission
   (Case T-738/15)
   (2016/C 059/50)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Aurubis AG (Hamburg, Germany), Aurubis Stolberg GmbH & Co. KG (Stolberg, Germany), Covestro Deutschland AG (Leverkusen, Germany), Dow Olefinverbund GmbH (Schkopau, Germany), Rheinkalk GmbH (Wülfrath, Germany), Siltronic AG (Munich, Germany), Vestolit GmbH (Marl, Germany) and Wacker Chemie AG (Munich) (represented by: C. Arhold and N. Wimmer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 3(1) of the contested decision

                           —

                           in so far as the Commission finds that the reductions in the surcharge for the funding of support for electricity from renewable sources (EEG-surcharge) in the years 2013 and 2014 for energy-intensive users (Besondere Ausgleichsregelung, ‘the BesAR’) constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, or

                           —

                           in the alternative, in so far as the Commission finds that the BesAR constitutes unlawful State aid established in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU.

               —

               annul Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the contested decision in so far as the Commission orders the recovery of the aid, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicants.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present action, the applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1585 of 25 November 2014 (notified under document C(2014) 8786 final) on the aid scheme SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (1).
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU
               The applicants claim that the BesAR is not State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, not least because of the lack of a transfer of State resources. In addition, it gives energy-intensive users no selective economic advantage.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 108 TFEU
               The applicants claim that, by ordering (partial) recovery, the Commission infringed Article 108 TFEU because the EEG-Act 2012 should have been classified, if at all, only as existing aid and not as new, unlawfully established aid.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations
               In that regard, it is claimed that the recovery of the aid allegedly granted unlawfully infringes the applicants’ legitimate expectations as to the lawfulness of the national legislation, which were established in particular by the Commission decision on the EEG-Act 2000.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(1) TFEU in conjunction with Article 18 of the Rules of Procedure
               Within the context of the fourth plea in law, the applicants complain that the Commission did not propose any appropriate measures to the Federal Republic of Germany before the initiation of the formal investigation procedure.

      (1)  OJ 2015 L 250, p. 122.


title: Case C-97/17: Action brought on 24 February 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/17

         Action brought on 24 February 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-97/17)
   (2017/C 121/25)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Mihaylova and C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, in failing to classify the entirety of the Rila important bird area as a special protection area, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to classify the most suitable territories in number and size as special protection areas for the conservation of the species of birds listed in Annex I to Directive 2009/147/EC (1) on the conservation of wild birds, and accordingly has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of that directive;

               2.

               Order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The case concerns the conservation of many endangered species of birds listed in Annex 1 to the Birds Directive and their habitats in the territory of the Rila mountain range in the south-west of Bulgaria. The Rila important bird area is one of the most significant places in both Bulgaria and the European Union for the conservation of over 130 species of nesting birds. 41 species are of European conservation concern, of which one is endangered worldwide.
   Under Article 4(1) of the Birds Directive, the species listed in Annex I must be the subject of special conservation measures concerning their habitat in order to ensure their survival and reproduction in their area of distribution. Furthermore, Article 4(1) of the Birds Directive provides that the Member States must classify in particular the most suitable territories in number and size as special protection areas for the conservation of those species.
   According to the Commission, the Republic of Bulgaria should have classified the Rila important bird area as a special protection area in its entirety, but, to date, has not done so. The Commission provides evidence of the ornithological importance of the unclassified territories in the Rila important bird area.

      (1)  Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7).


title: Case C-132/12 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 February 2014 — Stichting Woonpunt, Stichting Havensteder, formerly Stichting Com.wonen, Woningstichting Haag Wonen, Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Schemes for aid granted in favour of housing corporations — Compatibility decision — Commitments provided by the national authorities in order to comply with European Union law — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Action for annulment — Conditions governing admissibility — Interest in bringing proceedings — Locus standi — Beneficiaries who are individually and directly concerned — Notion of a ‘closed circle’ )

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 February 2014 — Stichting Woonpunt, Stichting Havensteder, formerly Stichting Com.wonen, Woningstichting Haag Wonen, Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl v European Commission
   (Case C-132/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Schemes for aid granted in favour of housing corporations - Compatibility decision - Commitments provided by the national authorities in order to comply with European Union law - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Action for annulment - Conditions governing admissibility - Interest in bringing proceedings - Locus standi - Beneficiaries who are individually and directly concerned - Notion of a ‘closed circle’))
   2014/C 112/04
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellants: Stichting Woonpunt, Stichting Havensteder, formerly Stichting Com.wonen, Woningstichting Haag Wonen, Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl (represented by: P. Glazener and E. Henny, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, S. Noë and S. Thomas, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-203/10 Stichting Woonpunt and Others v Commission by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 — Netherlands — Existing and special project aid to housing corporations.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 16 December 2011 in Case T-203/10 Stichting Woonpunt and Others v Commission in so far as it declares inadmissible the action brought by Stichting Woonpunt, Stichting Havensteder, Woningstichting Haag Wonen and Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid No E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 — The Netherlands — Existing and special project aid to housing corporations, in so far as that decision concerns aid measure E 2/2005;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

               3.

               Declares the action for annulment referred to in paragraph 1 of the present operative part to be admissible;

               4.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a decision on the merits concerning the action for annulment referred to in paragraph 1 of the present operative part;

               5.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.


title: Case F-58/10: Action brought on 16 July 2010 — Allgeier v FRA

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/27

         Action brought on 16 July 2010 — Allgeier v FRA
   (Case F-58/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Timo Allgeier (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

      The subject matter and description of the proceedings

   First, annulment of the decision of the defendant not to pursue the complaint for harassment lodged by the applicant. Second, recognition that the applicant has been a victim of harassment conducted by his superiors, and compensation for material and non-material loss.

      Form of order sought

               —

               The annulment of the decision of the Agency of Fundamental Rights dated 16 October 2009 rejecting the claims of the Appellant insofar as it does not recognize that he has been victim of an harassment conducted by Mr. M. and Mr. A. and, if necessary, the annulment of the decision dated 6 April 2010 rejecting the complaint;

               —

               the recognition that he has been victim of harassment conducted by Mr. M. and Mr. A. and the necessary disciplinary consequences; or, alternatively, (i) the opening of a new administrative enquiry, fair, independent and impartial with the creation of a panel of experts for the performance of the administrative enquiry and (ii) the adoption of all the necessary measures in order to allow a fair enquiry without any possible pressures and interferences;

               —

               the compensation of the Appellant’s material prejudice, provisionally evaluated at EUR 71 823,23;

               —

               the granting of EUR 85 000 in compensation of the moral prejudice resulting from the way the entire procedure was conducted and the Decision reached;

               —

               the condemnation of FRA to the payment of the costs.


title: Case C-198/06: Action brought on  2 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/15

         Action brought on 2 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-198/06)
   (2006/C 165/27)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and F. Simonetti, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to draw up or, in any event, to transmit the report required under Article 9 of Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars (1), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of that directive;

               —

               order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg was required to transmit to the Commission, no later than 31 December 2003, a report on the effectiveness of the provisions of the directive, covering the period from 18 January 2001 to 31 December 2002.

      (1)   OJ 2000 L 12, p. 16.


title: Case C-143/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 26 March 2015 — G.E. Security BV; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 26 March 2015 — G.E. Security BV; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-143/15)
   (2015/C 198/27)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: G.E. Security BV

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Question referred

   Should headings 8517, 8521, 8531 and 8543 of the Combined Nomenclature be interpreted as meaning that a product such as a video multiplexer — which was developed to form part of a system which is able to analyse images and sounds derived from cameras and alarm sensors connected to it, and which, if required, records, stores, processes and displays images and sounds on a monitor connected to it, and/or which, when the images or sounds so warrant, emits a warning signal in the form of an e-mail to one or more of the users connected to the system, and/or which can activate devices which emit sound or light signals — is to be classified under one of those headings?


title: Case C-168/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Linz, Austria, by order of that court of 6 April 2000 in the case of Simone Leitner, a minor, v TUI Deutschland GmbH & Co KG

text:
C 192/12              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         8.7.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht             Pleas in law and main arguments
Linz, Austria, by order of that court of 6 April 2000 in
the case of Simone Leitner, a minor, v TUI Deutschland                — Infringement of Article 14(2)(2)(a) of the Rules of Pro-
                        GmbH & Co KG                                      cedure of the Court of First Instance, as amended by the
                                                                          decision adopted by the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 17 May 1999 with a view to
                        (Case C-168/00)
                                                                          enabling it to give decisions in cases when constituted by
                                                                          a single judge (2): the case was delegated by the First
                        (2000/C 192/20)                                   Chamber to the Judge-Rapporteur sitting as a single judge
                                                                          and determined by that judge in that capacity, despite the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    fact that it raised the question of the legality of points 2.3
European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht                     and 3.2 of the document entitled ‘Requests and Complaints
(Regional Court), Linz, of 6 April 2000, which was received at            pursuant to Article 90 of the Staff Regulations’, published
the Court Registry on 8 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling in             by the Commission in Administrative Notices No 635 of
the case of Simone Leitner, a minor, v TUI Deutschland GmbH               16.7.1990. In addition, the case raised the question of the
& Co KG, on the following question:                                       legality of the second paragraph of Article 3 of the
                                                                          Commission’s decision of 1 September 1983 on the
                                                                          criteria applicable to appointment in grade and classifi-
Is Article 5 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990              cation in step on recruitment.
on package travel, package holidays and package tours (1) to
be interpreted as meaning that compensation is in principle           — Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 2 of the
payable in respect of claims for damages for non-material                 Commission’s decision of 1 September 1983 on the
damage?                                                                   criteria applicable to appointment in grade and classifi-
                                                                          cation in step on recruitment, and of Articles 31 and 32 of
                                                                          the Staff Regulations, which apply to members of the
(1) OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59.
                                                                          temporary staff by virtue of Article 5 of that decision: both
                                                                          Article 31 and Article 32 of the Staff Regulations are
                                                                          designed, in particular, to permit the appointing authority
                                                                          to take into account qualifications and professional experi-
                                                                          ence gained prior to recruitment by the Communities.
                                                                          Consequently, a provision having the object or effect of
                                                                          restricting that possibility, by prohibiting the taking into
                                                                          account of the experience acquired by the person con-
Appeal brought on 10 May 2000 by Alain Libéros against                    cerned between the date of his being offered employment
the judgment delivered on 9 March 2000 by the Court of                    and the date of his entry into the service of the Communi-
First Instance of the European Communities (single judge)                 ties, would be contrary to those articles.
in Case T-29/97 between Alain Libéros and the Com-
           mission of the European Communities                        — Breach of the obligation to provide reasons for judgments,
                                                                          according to which, in particular, the grounds stated must
                       (Case C-171/00 P)                                  be legally permissible, that is to say, adequate, relevant, not
                                                                          vitiated by errors of law or of fact and not inconsistent.
                        (2000/C 192/21)
                                                                      (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000, p. 30.
                                                                      (2) OJ L 135 of 29.5.1999, p. 92.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 March 2000
by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(single judge) in Case T-29/97 between Alain Libéros and the
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
10 May 2000 by Alain Libéros, represented by Marc-Albert
Lucas, of the Liège Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luc Tecqmenne, 3 Rue des                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fourth Chamber
Capucins.                                                             of the Consiglio di Stato, sitting in its judicial capacity, by
                                                                      order of that court of 12 November 1999 in the case of
                                                                      ANAS — Ente Nazionale per le Strade against SCA RL
The appellant claims that the Court should:                           CMC Cooperativa Muratori Cementisti Ravenna and SpA
                                                                      ICLA Costruzioni Generali and SpA Impresa Toto e Toto
— annul the judgment delivered on 9 March 2000 by the
    Court of First Instance in Case T-29/97 Libéros v Com-
    mission of the European Communities (1);                                                   (Case C-173/00)
— allow the claims put forward in the proceedings at first                                     (2000/C 192/22)
    instance;
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                              European Communities by order of the Fourth Chamber of


title: Case F-36/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 March 2012 — BD v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Non-extension of employment contract — Article 11a of the Staff Regulations — Conflict of interest — Relationship of trust — Article 12b of the Staff Regulations — Outside activity — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/27

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 March 2012 — BD v Commission
   (Case F-36/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Contract staff - Non-extension of employment contract - Article 11a of the Staff Regulations - Conflict of interest - Relationship of trust - Article 12b of the Staff Regulations - Outside activity - Presumption of innocence)
   2012/C 138/57
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: BD (Etterbeek, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decision not to extend the applicant’s contract beyond its end date and, hence, for reinstating the applicant in his previous functions with effect from 1 November 2010.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders BD to bear his own costs and the Commission’s costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011, p. 22.


               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/10

         Removal from the Register of Case C-47/04 (1)

   (2005/C 155/20)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 14 February 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the Register of Case C-47/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 71 of 20.03.2004.


title: Case F-99/12: Action brought on 18 September 2012 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/24

         Action brought on 18 September 2012 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions
   (Case F-99/12)
   2012/C 343/42
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, A. Blot, avocats)

      Defendant: Committee of the Regions

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Committee of the Regions rejecting the applicant’s request that the calculation of his pension rights not be made under the new GIP.

      Forms of order sought

               —

               by way of principal claim, annul the decision of the Committee of the Regions of 1 December 2011 rejecting the applicant’s request of 13 July 2011, as completed on 16 August 2011;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the decision dated 8 June 2012 expressly rejecting the applicant’s claim dated 10 February 2012;

               —

               in the alternative, recognise the non-pecuniary loss suffered and order the defendant to pay the amount of EUR 20 000;

               —

               order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs.


title: Case C-81/06: Order of the President of the Court of 31 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/37

         Order of the President of the Court of 31 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-81/06) (1)

   (2006/C 294/73)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 86, 08.04.2006.


title: Case C-295/15 P: Appeal brought on 12 June 2015 by Matratzen Concord GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 April 2015 in Case T-258/13 Matratzen Concord v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/17

         Appeal brought on 12 June 2015 by Matratzen Concord GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 April 2015 in Case T-258/13 Matratzen Concord v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

   (Case C-295/15 P)
   (2015/C 302/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (represented by: I. Selting, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commerciale sociétá in accomandita

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside the decision of the Sixth Chamber of the General Court of 16 April 2015 in Case T-258/13 concerning the cancellation of the Community trade mark 281 86 80 ‘Arktis’ due to lack of genuine use;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs incurred in the course of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant alleges the following errors of law in the decision of the General Court:
   The General Court wrongly took into account the sales figures of the company Breiding in favour of the contested mark. The number of items sold by the company Breiding during the period at issue from 2006 to 2009 should not have been taken into account.
   When examining the genuine use, the General Court wrongly took into account not the goods marked ‘Arktis’ but the goods marked ‘Arktis Line’ and took the view that the addition ‘Line’ is exclusively descriptive.
   In addition, the General Court exercised its discretion wrongly in finding that there was genuine use of the contested mark although the trade mark proprietor’s goods turnovers were extremely small.
   Lastly, the General Court did not have regard to the fact that the genuine use at issue concerns ‘bedding’ and ‘bed blankets’. However, the trade mark proprietor submitted evidence only of use of the mark for ‘bed blankets’ and not for other bedding such as pillows and mattresses. For this reason at least ‘bedding’ must be cancelled from the mark.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 22 March 1995 in Case T-43/93: Sylviane Dachy and Others v. European Parliament (Officials - Expatriation allowance - Services performed for an international organization)

text:
No C 119/ 10             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13 . 5 . 95
on the same questions as in Case C-47/95 , C-48/95 ,                    from the register of Case C-455/93 : Italian Republic v.
C-49/95 , C-50/95 and C-60/95 ( 1 ).                                    Commission of the European Communities.
i 1 ) See page 5 of this Official Journal .                             0 ) OJ No C 18 , 21 . 1 . 1994 .
   Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-183/89 H
                          and C-138/90 ( 2 )                                   Removal from the register of Case C- 1 1 7/94 ( x )
                            ( 95/C 119/21                                                           ( 95/C 119/23 )
fiy order of 21 February 1995 the President of the Court of             By order of 17 February 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Joined Cases C-183/89 and C-138/90 :               from the register of Case C- 1 17/94 (reference for a
1 . Gesamtverband des Deutschen Steinkohlenbergbaus,                    preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Diisseldorf):
2 . Eschweiler Bergwerks-Verein AG, 3 . Gewerkschaft                    Ratiopharm GmbH & Co . v. Mundipharma GmbH.
Auguste Victoria, 4 . Gewerkschaft Sophia-Jacoba, 5 .
Preussag AG Kohle, 6 . Ruhrkohle AG, 7. Saarbergwerke
AG v. Commission of the European Communities and                        (!) OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .
Federal Republic of Germany v. Commission of the
European Communities.
f 1 ) OJ No C 192 , 29 . 7 . 1989 .
( 2 ) OJ No C 146, 15 . 6 . 1990 .
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-183/94 (*)
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/24 )
                                                                        By order of 7 February 1995 the President of the Court of
        Removal from the register of Case C-455/93 ( )                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                            ( 95/C 119/22 )                             from the register of Case C-l 83/94: Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Italian Republic .
By order of 17 February 1 995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 f 1 ) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Parliament (Agents: M. Peter and J. Pantalis) — application
                         of 22 March 1995                               for the annulment of the decision of the European
                                                                        Parliament of 29 September 1992 refusing the payment of
        in Case T-43/93 : Sylviane Dachy and Others v.                  the applicant of the expatriation allowance from
                     European Parliament (*)                            1 September 1992 — the Court of First Instance ( Second
(Officials   — Expatriation allowance — Services performed              Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and
                for an international organization)                      D. P. M. Barrington and A. Saggio, Judges; H. Jung,
                            ( 95/C 119/25                               Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 March 1995 , in which
                                                                        it:
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        1 , dismisses the action;
In Case T-43/93 : Sylviane Dachy, Loris and Fabio Lo                    2, orders the parties to pay their own costs.
Giudice, the next-of-kin of Mario Lo Giudice, formerly an
official of the European Parliament, residing at Namur
( Belgium ), represented by Manuel Campolini, of the                    f 1 ) OJ No C 210, 4 . 8 . 1993 .
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Charles Duro, 6 Rue Heine, v. European


title: Case C-149/07: Order of the President of the Court of 28 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/35

         Order of the President of the Court of 28 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-149/07) (1)

   (2007/C 297/69)

      Language of the case: Polish

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

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case C-255/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Københavns Byret (Denmark) lodged on 2 May 2016 — Anklagemyndigheden v Bent Falbert, Poul Madsen, JP/Politikens Hus A/S

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Københavns Byret (Denmark) lodged on 2 May 2016 — Anklagemyndigheden v Bent Falbert, Poul Madsen, JP/Politikens Hus A/S
   (Case C-255/16)
   (2016/C 251/18)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Københavns Byret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Anklagemyndigheden

      Defendants: Bent Falbert, Poul Madsen, JP/Politikens Hus A/S

      Questions referred

   Does this case involve a rule that must be notified under Article 8(1), cf. Article 1, first paragraph, (2), (5), and (11) of Directive 98/34/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, assuming the following:

               (a)

               amending legislation is to be introduced amending the Law on certain gaming, lotteries and betting (lov om visse spil, lotterier og væddemål), under which a provision is to be introduced on sentencing inter alia for whoever intentionally or through gross negligence ‘offers gaming, lotteries or betting in Denmark without holding a licence pursuant to Paragraph 1’, and for whoever intentionally or through gross negligence ‘advertises gaming, lotteries or betting not covered by a licence under Paragraph 1’, and

               (b)

               the remarks on the draft amending legislation indicate that the purpose of the abovementioned sentencing provisions is to clarify or introduce a prohibition on gaming offered online by gaming companies outside Denmark and directly targeting the Danish market, partly by prohibiting advertising for, inter alia, gaming offered online by gaming companies outside Denmark, inasmuch as the same remarks it is stated that there is no doubt that, under the rules prevailing before the amendments, gaming measures are unlawful if a gaming company outside Denmark makes use of sales channels in which the gaming device is actually physically sold within the borders of Denmark; there is, however, greater doubt as to whether gaming from outside Denmark aimed at gaming participants in Denmark but actually physically situated outside Denmark is also covered by the provision; and it is therefore necessary to have clarified whether those forms of gaming are covered. It is further apparent from the remarks that it is suggested to introduce an advertising ban on gaming, lotteries and betting which are not licensed under that law, and that the amendment complies with the current prohibition in Paragraph 12(3) of the Law on horserace betting (hestevæddeløbsloven) but is a clarification of Paragraph 10(4) of the [now repealed] Law on betting and lotteries (Tips- og lottoloven). The remarks further state that the purpose of the prohibition is to protect gaming providers holding a licence from the Danish authorities against competition from companies that do not hold such a licence and who therefore cannot lawfully offer or broker gaming in Denmark.

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37.


title: Case T-272/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — P-D Glasseiden and Others v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/62

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — P-D Glasseiden and Others v Commission
   (Case T-272/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 294/75)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: P-D Glasseiden GmbH Oschatz (Oschatz, Germany); P-D Interglas Technologies GmbH (Erbach, Germany); P-D Industriegesellschaft mbH (Wilsdruff, Germany); and Glashütte Freital GmbH (Freital, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and G.-R. Engel, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               3.

               P-D Glasseiden GmbH Oschatz, P-D Interglas Technologies GmbH, P-D Industriegesellschaft mbH and Glashütte Freital GmbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-330/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 — Johannes Tomana and Others v Council of the European Union, European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeal — Restrictive measures imposed on certain persons and entities forming part of the Government of Zimbabwe or linked to it — List of persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the appellants’ names)

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 — Johannes Tomana and Others v Council of the European Union, European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-330/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Restrictive measures imposed on certain persons and entities forming part of the Government of Zimbabwe or linked to it - List of persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the appellants’ names))
   (2016/C 350/12)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Johannes Tomana and Others (represented by: M. O’Kane, Solicitor, M. Lester and Z. Al-Rikabi, Barristers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and A. Vitro, Agents), European Commission (represented by: E. Georgieva, M. Konstantinidis and T. Scharf, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Holt, Agent, and S. Lee, Barrister)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Johannes Tomana and the 120 other appellants whose names are listed in the annex to the present judgment to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Case C-181/05: Action brought on 22 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/7

         Action brought on 22 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-181/05)
   (2005/C 171/13)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by U. Wölker and M. Konstantinidis, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that by not correctly implementing the necessary provisions in German law, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(4), 5(4) and 4(2)(a) of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles; (1)

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The first sentence of Paragraph 1(3) of the Federal Republic of Germany's End-of-life Vehicle Regulations does not comply with the provisions of Directive 2000/53/EC, since Article 3(1) of the directive — in conjunction with Article 2(1) — applies to all vehicles designated as category M1 or N1 and also to special-purpose vehicles. In contrast, the provisions of the German End-of-life Vehicle Regulations apply to special-purpose vehicles only up to a maximum permissible weight of 3.5 tons. Article 3(4) of the directive exempts special-purpose vehicles from the reuse and recovery provisions, but not from the prohibited substances. Accordingly, it is clear from the relevant provisions that it is the characteristics of the end product which determine the area of application: thus, if a special-purpose vehicle, after adaptation, has the characteristics associated with category M1 it falls unconditionally within the area of application of Directive 2000/53. Therefore, the restriction by reference to total weight infringes the directive.
   The third sentence of Paragraph 1(3) of the German End-of-life Vehicle Regulations exempts ‘instruments, components and other equipment required for special purpose of the vehicles’ from the prohibited substances. This exception is not provided for in the directive, since its relevant provisions apply to all materials and components principally included for use in vehicles covered by the directive, including materials and components which are required for the special purpose.
   In accordance with Paragraph 3(4) of the End-of-life Vehicle Regulations the principle that end-of life vehicles be collected free of charge does not apply if the end-of-life vehicle is not registered or was not last registered in compliance with the provisions of the German registration procedure, if the end-of-life vehicle has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the German registration procedure for less than one month prior to its retirement, if the vehicle registration book was not surrendered or if the end-of-life vehicle is a category M1 or N1 vehicle which was not produced and approved in series and in a single-stage process. These exceptions are not provided for in the directive.
   Paragraph 8(2) of the End-of-life Vehicle Regulations restricts the prohibition of certain substances under Article 4(2)(a) of the directive to vehicles put on the market after 1 July 2003 and to materials and components for those vehicles. Since, however, the prohibition of certain substances under the directive covers all materials and components put on the market after 1 July 2003, the End-of-life Vehicle Regulation's provision is not in compliance with the directive. The fact that, with decisions 2002/525 and 5006/63, exceptions for spare parts additional to those currently listed in Annex II to the directive were foreseen cannot justify an alternative interpretation of Article 4(2)(a) of the directive, as the necessity of those exceptions became apparent only after adoption of the directive. The abovementioned conflict as regards the German Regulations will be revived when the temporally-limited exceptions expire. The directive's aims — to minimise the impact of end-of-life vehicles on the environment and to prevent waste as far as possible — could be best achieved by interpreting Article 4(2)(a) as strictly as possible.

      (1)  OJ No L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.


title: Case T-179/15: Order of the General Court of 3 May 2016 — Lions Gate Entertainment v EUIPO (DIRTY DANCING)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/35

         Order of the General Court of 3 May 2016 — Lions Gate Entertainment v EUIPO (DIRTY DANCING)
   (Case T-179/15) (1)

   (2016/C 222/45)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.


title: Case C-345/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 February 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) — Centro Equestre da Lezíria Grande Lda v Bundesamt für Finanzen (Freedom to provide services — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Equestrian presentations and lessons organised in a Member State by a company established in another Member State — Deduction of operating expenses — Conditions — Direct economic connection to income received in the State in which the activity is pursued)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 February 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) — Centro Equestre da Lezíria Grande Lda v Bundesamt für Finanzen
   (Case C-345/04) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Equestrian presentations and lessons organised in a Member State by a company established in another Member State - Deduction of operating expenses - Conditions - Direct economic connection to income received in the State in which the activity is pursued)
   (2007/C 82/05)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Centro Equestre da Lezíria Grande Lda

      Defendant: Bundesamt für Finanzen
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Whether national legislation relating to income tax payable by non-residents which provides that tax is to be repaid where operating expenses which have a direct economic connection to income are higher than half of the income is compatible with Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) does not preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings in so far as that legislation makes repayment of corporation tax deducted at source on the income of a taxpayer with restricted tax liability subject to the condition that the operating expenses in respect of which a deduction is claimed for that purpose by that taxpayer have a direct economic connection to the income received from activities pursued in the Member State concerned, on condition that all the costs that are inextricably linked to that activity are considered to have such a direct connection, irrespective of the place and time at which those costs were incurred. By contrast, that article precludes such national legislation in so far as it makes repayment of that tax to that taxpayer subject to the condition that those same operating expenses exceed half of that income.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.


title: Case C-104/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 19 March 2009 — Pedro Manuel Roca Álvarez v Sesa Start España ETT SA

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 19 March 2009 — Pedro Manuel Roca Álvarez v Sesa Start España ETT SA
   (Case C-104/09)
   2009/C 141/40
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pedro Manuel Roca Álvarez

      Defendant: Sesa Start España ETT SA

      Question referred

   Does a national law (specifically, Article 37.4 of the Workers’ Statute) which recognises only employed mothers, but not employed fathers, as holders of the right to paid leave in respect of the feeding of an unweaned child, — leave which consists of a half-hour reduction in the working day or an hour taken off from work that may be divided into two parts, which is voluntary, paid for by the employer and may be taken until the child is nine months old —, infringe the principle of equal treatment, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex, and is recognised in Article 13 of the Treaty, in Council Directive 76/207/EEC (1) of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, and in Directive 2002/73 (2) amending that Directive?

      (1)  OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40.

      (2)  OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15.


title: Case F-102/15: Action brought on 9 July 2015 — ZZ v EESC

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/70

         Action brought on 9 July 2015 — ZZ v EESC
   (Case F-102/15)
   (2015/C 302/87)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decisions of the EESC rejecting the applicant’s request for access to documents and for damages in respect of the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decisions of 10 September 2014 and 19 November 2014 rejecting the applicant’s request of 12 June 2014 for access to documents, supplemented by the requests of 23 September, 20 and 30 October 2014;

               —

               annul the decision of 27 March 2015, received on 31 March 2015, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 1 December 2014;

               —

               order payment of compensation in respect of the non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant, assessed at EUR 10  000;

               —

               order the EESC to pay all the costs.


title: Case C-26/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Leeuwarden (Netherlands), lodged on 18 January 2012 — fiscale eenheid PPG Holdings BV c.s. v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Noord/kantoor Groningen

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Leeuwarden (Netherlands), lodged on 18 January 2012 — fiscale eenheid PPG Holdings BV c.s. v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Noord/kantoor Groningen
   (Case C-26/12)
   2012/C 98/24
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof te Leeuwarden (Netherlands)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: fiscale eenheid PPG Holdings BV c.s.

      Respondent: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Noord/kantoor Groningen

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can a taxable person who, pursuant to national pensions legislation, has established a separate pension fund for the purpose of safeguarding the pension rights of his employees and former employees, as participants in the fund, deduct the tax which he [has paid] on the basis of services supplied to him in respect of the implementation of the pension provision and the operation of the pension fund, pursuant to Article 17 of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) (Articles 168 and 169 of Directive 2006/112/EC (2))?

               2.

               Can a pension fund, established with the objective of providing a pension for the participants in the pension fund at the lowest possible cost, where assets are brought to and invested in the pension fund by or on behalf of the participants, and where the resulting proceeds are shared, be classified as a ‘special investment fund’ within the terms of Article 13B[(d)].6 of Directive 77/388/EEC (Article 135(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112/EC)?

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

      (2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-349/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Castellón (Spain) lodged on 10 July 2015 — Banco Popular Español, S.A. v Elena Lucaciu and Cristian Laurentiu Lucaciu

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Castellón (Spain) lodged on 10 July 2015 — Banco Popular Español, S.A. v Elena Lucaciu and Cristian Laurentiu Lucaciu
   (Case C-349/15)
   (2015/C 302/29)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Castellón

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Banco Popular Español, S.A.

      Respondents: Elena Lucaciu and Cristian Laurentiu Lucaciu

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it compatible with Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) to limit in time the effects of the nullity of a term declared null and void because unfair?

               2.

               If such a limitation of the effects is held to be compatible with the EU legislation, specifically Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts, on the grounds that those concerned acted in good faith and that there is a risk of serious difficulties:

                           a)

                           What is meant by serious difficulties justifying the limitation of the effects?

                           b)

                           Must the risk of serious difficulties be duly established in the court proceedings in which it is invoked or, on the other hand, may the general assessment by the court of that risk be sufficient where there is no specific data on which to base that assessment?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 25, p. 29.


title: Case T-397/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2016 — PAL-Bullermann v EUIPO — Symaga (PAL) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark PAL — Partial revocation — Genuine use of the mark — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form differing from the registered mark — Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2016 — PAL-Bullermann v EUIPO — Symaga (PAL)
   (Case T-397/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark PAL - Partial revocation - Genuine use of the mark - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form differing from the registered mark - Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
   (2017/C 030/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: PAL-Bullermann GmbH (Friesoythe-Markhausen, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Symaga, SA (Villarta de San Juan, Spain) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 May 2015 (Case R 1626/2014-1) relating to revocation proceedings between PAL-Bullermann and Symaga.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders PAL-Bullermann GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Case T-810/14: Order of the General Court of 27 June 2016 — Portugal v Commission (Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court establishing an infringement — Periodic penalty payment — Judgment quantifying the amount of the penalty payment — Repeal of the national legislation incompatible with EU law — Date when the infringement ceased — Annulment of an earlier decision quantifying a penalty payment imposed in compliance with the same judgment of the Court — Res judicata — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/26

         Order of the General Court of 27 June 2016 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-810/14) (1)

   ((Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court establishing an infringement - Periodic penalty payment - Judgment quantifying the amount of the penalty payment - Repeal of the national legislation incompatible with EU law - Date when the infringement ceased - Annulment of an earlier decision quantifying a penalty payment imposed in compliance with the same judgment of the Court - Res judicata - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2016/C 326/47)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, J. de Oliveira and S. Nunes de Almeida, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braga da Cruz and M. Heller, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU asking for annulment of the Commission decision MARKT/A2/3523710 of 3 October 2014 quantifying the penalty payment due by the Portuguese Republic for the period between 20 and 29 January 2008, in compliance with the judgment of 10 January 2008 in Commission v Portugal (C-70/06, EU:C:2008:3).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               2.

               The Portuguese Republic shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Case F-7/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 February 2010 — Faria v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Staff cases — Officials — Reports — Evaluation report — 2006/2007 evaluation period — Application for annulment of the evaluation report — Manifest error of assessment — Compensation for non-material damage)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/51

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 February 2010 — Faria v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case F-7/09) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Reports - Evaluation report - 2006/2007 evaluation period - Application for annulment of the evaluation report - Manifest error of assessment - Compensation for non-material damage)
   2010/C 134/84
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Marie-Hélène Faria (Muchamiel, Spain) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: I. de Medrano Caballero, Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Annulment of the evaluation report in respect of the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007, and an order that the defendant pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls Ms Faria's evaluation report, drawn up by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in respect of the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007;

               2.

               For the rest, dismisses the action;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of Ms Faria's costs;

               4.

               Orders Ms Faria to bear one quarter of her own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69 of 21.03.2009, p. 55.


title: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 May 2002 in Case C-129/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bologna): Condominio Facchini Orsini v Kone Ascensori SpA (Preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)

text:
28.9.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 233/11
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                                            ORDER OF THE COURT
( 1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.                                                                         (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 18 July 2002
                                                                            in Case C-136/01 P: Autosalone Ispra dei Fratelli Rossi
                                                                                Snc v European Atomic Energy Community ( 1)
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                            (Appeal — Claim for compensation — Non-contractual
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                    liability — Flooding — Blocked drain — Limitation period
                                                                                — No interruption of limitation period)
                           of 2 May 2002
                                                                                (2002/C 233/17)
in Case C-129/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale di Bologna): Condominio Facchini Orsini v
                     Kone Ascensori SpA (1)                                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
             (Preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                          (2002/C 233/16)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            In Case C-136/01 P: Autosalone Ispra dei Fratelli Rossi Snc,
                                                                            established in Ispra (Italy), (Lawyer: F. Venuti), appeal against
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      the order of the Court of First Instance of the European
                   in the European Court Reports)                           Communities (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2001 in Case
                                                                            T-124/99 Autosalone Ispra dei Fratelli Rossi v EAEC [2001]
                                                                            ECR II-53, seeking to have that order set aside, the other
                                                                            party to the proceedings being: European Atomic Energy
                                                                            Community, represented by the Commission of the European
In Case C-129/01: reference to the Court under Article 234                  Communities (Agents: H. Speyart and P. Stancanelli) —
EC from the Tribunale di Bologna (Italy) for a preliminary                  the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                 (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and
Condominio Facchini Orsini and Kone Ascensori SpA — on                      V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
the interpretation of Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/              R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 July 2002, the
EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts                   operative part of which is as follows:
(OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gul-
mann, J.-P. Puissochet and V. Skouris, Judges; J. Mischo,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                 1.    The appeal is dismissed.
2 May 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            2.    Autosalone Ispra dei Fratelli Rossi Snc is ordered to pay the
The question submitted for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di               costs.
Bologna, by order of 20 February 2001, is inadmissible.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 150, 19.5.2001.
( 1) OJ C 173, 16.6.2001.


title: Case T-39/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Cargolux Airlines v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Cargolux Airlines v Commission
   (Case T-39/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 048/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cargolux Airlines International SA (Sandweiler, Luxembourg) (represented initially by J. Joshua, Barrister, and G. Goeteyn, Solicitor, and subsequently by G. Goeteyn and T. Soames, Solicitors, C. Rawnsley, Barrister, and E. Aliende Rodríguez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by N. Khan, S. Noë and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents, and by O. Jones and subsequently by S. Love, Barristers, and represented subsequently by N. Khan and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Articles 1 to 5 of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as they concern Cargolux Airlines International SA;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Cargolux Airlines International.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case T-83/09: Action brought on 20 February 2009 — Chalk v OHIM — Reformed Spirits Company Holdings (CRAIC)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/35

         Action brought on 20 February 2009 — Chalk v OHIM — Reformed Spirits Company Holdings (CRAIC)
   (Case T-83/09)
   2009/C 90/54
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: David Chalk (Canterbury, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Balme, W. James and M. Gilbert Solicitors and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Reformed Spirits Company Holdings Ltd (St Helier, Jersey)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 November 2008 in case R 1888/2007-2;

               —

               Remove the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal from OHIM’s register and allow the registration of the applicant as the proprietor of Community trade mark No 2 245 306 pursuant to the assignment from Arthur Crack Limited to the applicant dated 21 January 2006;
               In the alternative, remit the case to the Board of Appeal of OHIM for consideration in the light of the Court’s findings;

               —

               Order OHIM, and to the extent it intervenes in these proceedings the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs, including those of these proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for revocation of the recordal of the transfer: The word mark ‘CRAIC’ for goods in classes 25, 32 and 33

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Party requesting the revocation of the recordal of the transfer: The applicant

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal to revoke the decision concerning the recordal of transfer

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

   Firstly, infringement of Article 16(1) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to consider and apply the national laws of Member States (in this case, the United Kingdom) when making any decision based on a transfer of a Community trade mark;
   Secondly, infringement of Rule 31 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 (1) as the Board of Appeal failed to consider the validity and effect of documents that are provided to it if the legal effect of those documents is challenged subsequently;
   Thirdly, infringement of Article 77(a) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to consider previous decisions taken by OHIM in the light of further facts and evidence supplied to it;
   Fourthly, infringement of Article 23 of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly rejected the applicant’s request to record the assignment of Community trade mark No 2 245 306;
   Finally, the Board of Appeal wrongly refused to revoke the decision by which OHIM has recorded the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal as proprietor of Community trade mark No 2 245 306, as well as when it held that Council Regulation 40/94 and Commission Regulation 2868/95 do not permit the OHIM to record the applicant as the registered proprietor of Community trade mark No 2 245 306.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: Case C-388/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Le Crédit Lyonnais v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Réforme de l’État (Value added tax — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Articles 17 and 19 — Deduction of input tax paid — Use of goods and services for both taxable and exempt transactions — Proportional deduction — Calculation of the proportion — Branches established in other Member States and in third States — Not taking their turnover into account)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Le Crédit Lyonnais v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Réforme de l’État
   (Case C-388/11) (1)

   (Value added tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Articles 17 and 19 - Deduction of input tax paid - Use of goods and services for both taxable and exempt transactions - Proportional deduction - Calculation of the proportion - Branches established in other Member States and in third States - Not taking their turnover into account)
   2013/C 325/03
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Le Crédit Lyonnais

      Defendant: Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Réforme de l’État

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(1) to (5), Article 17(2), (3)(a) and (c), and (5), and Article 19 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p.1) — Deduction of input tax — Goods and services used both for deductible and non-deductible transactions — Calculation of the deductible proportion — Obligation of the principal establishment of a company established in a Member State to take account of income of branches established in another Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 17(2) and (5) and Article 19(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as meaning that, in determining the deductible proportion of VAT applicable to it, a company, the principal establishment of which is situated in a Member State, may not take into account the turnover of its branches established in other Member States.

               2.

               Article 17(3)(a) and (c) and Article 19(1) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that, in determining the deductible proportion of VAT applicable to it, a company, the principal establishment of which is situated in a Member State, may not take into account the turnover of its branches established in third States.

               3.

               The third subparagraph of Article 17(5) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as not permitting a Member State to adopt a rule for the calculation of the deductible proportion per sector of business of a company subject to tax which authorises that company to take into account the turnover of a branch established in another Member State or in a third State.

      (1)  OJ 2011 C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Case C-539/03: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Roche Nederland BV, Roche Diagnostic Systems Inc., Roche NV, Hoffman-La Roche AG, Produits Roch SA, Roche Products Ltd, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Hoffman-La Roche Wien GmbH, Roche AB v Frederick Primus, Milton Goldenberg (Brussels Convention — Article 6(1) — More than one defendant — Jurisdiction of the courts of the place where one of the defendants is domiciled — Action for infringement of a European patent — Defendants established in different Contracting States — Patent infringements committed in a number of Contracting States)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/1

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Roche Nederland BV, Roche Diagnostic Systems Inc., Roche NV, Hoffman-La Roche AG, Produits Roch SA, Roche Products Ltd, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Hoffman-La Roche Wien GmbH, Roche AB v Frederick Primus, Milton Goldenberg
   (Case C-539/03) (1)

   (Brussels Convention - Article 6(1) - More than one defendant - Jurisdiction of the courts of the place where one of the defendants is domiciled - Action for infringement of a European patent - Defendants established in different Contracting States - Patent infringements committed in a number of Contracting States)
   (2006/C 224/02)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Roche Nederland BV, Roche Diagnostic Systems Inc., Roche NV, Hoffman-La Roche AG, Produits Roche SA, Roche Products Ltd, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Hoffmann-La Roche Wien GmbH, Roche AB

      Defendants: Frederick Primus, Milton Goldenberg
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 6(1) of the Brussels Convention — More than one defendant — Actions for infringement of a European patent brought against companies established in various European States — Jurisdiction of the Courts of the principal place of business of one of the companies.
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended most recently by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply in European patent infringement proceedings involving a number of companies established in various Contracting States in respect of acts committed in one or more of those States even where those companies, which belong to the same group, may have acted in an identical or similar manner in accordance with a common policy elaborated by one of them.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.