title: Case C-187/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — European Commission v Austrian Republic

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/22

         Action brought on 4 April 2016 — European Commission v Austrian Republic
   (Case C-187/16)
   (2016/C 191/27)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Tokár, B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Austrian Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that the Austrian Republic:

                           —

                           by awarding public service contracts directly to the Österreichische Staatsdruckerei GmbH for the manufacture of certain documents, such as chip passports, emergency passports, residence permits, identity cards, fireworks display permits, credit card-sized driving licences and credit card-sized vehicle licences under and above the thresholds applicable under Directive 92/50/EEC and Directive 2004/18/EC in the time before and after the transposition of Directive 2004/18/EC, and

                           —

                           by maintaining national provisions, such as in particular Paragraph 2(3) of the Federal Law on the reorganisation of the legal relationships of the Österreichische Staatsdruckerei, which require contracting authorities to award those public service contracts exclusively to the Österreichische Staatsdruckerei GmbH;

                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 and 56 TFEU or under Article 4 read in conjunction with Articles 11 to 37 of Directive 92/50/EEC (1) and Articles 14, 20 and 23 to 55 of Directive 2004/18/EC. (2)

               2.

               Order the Austrian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following arguments:
   Österreichische Staatsdruckerei GmbH is a private undertaking.
   Austrian law requires that the manufacture of all documents which entail secrecy or compliance with security rules to be awarded exclusively to the Österreichische Staatsdruckerei GmbH.
   Austrian contracting authorities were therefore required to award public service contracts for the manufacture of chip passports, emergency passports, residence permits, identity cards, credit card-sized driving licences, credit card-sized vehicle licences and fireworks display permits directly to the Österreichische Staatsdruckerei GmbH.
   Austrian contracting authorities had, however, the obligation to award the manufacture of the above documents to undertakings that were selected following award procedures which conformed to the requirements of Directive 92/50/EEC and Directive 2004/18/EC or with a sufficient degree of publicity pursuant to the TFEU.
   In so far as Austrian contracting authorities awarded public service contracts for the manufacture of the above documents to the Österreichische Staatsdruckerei GmbH without carrying out award procedures and were, on the basis of national law, required to award public service contracts for the manufacture of those documents exclusively to the Österreichische Staatsdruckerei GmbH, Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law.

      (1)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).


title: Case C-51/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 4 February 2014 — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 4 February 2014 — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung
   (Case C-51/14)
   2014/C 142/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG

      Respondent: Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 14(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1998/78 (1) contain the definitive provisions governing the replacement of sugar for storage-cost-reimbursement purposes and is it not a precondition under that provision that the replacement sugar must be produced by another manufacturer established on the territory of the same Member State?

               2.

               If the answer is in the affirmative: Does Article 14(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1998/78 make it a condition for claiming reimbursement of storage costs that the replacement C sugar is ‘physically replaced’ at the premises of the sugar manufacturer?

               3.

               If Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 (2) is applicable to the replacement of sugar: Does Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 make it a condition for claiming reimbursement of storage costs that the replacement C sugar is ‘physically replaced’ at the premises of the sugar manufacturer?

               4.

               In the alternative: Is Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 invalid in so far as it requires the replacement sugar to have been ‘produced by another manufacturer established on the territory of the same Member State’?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1998/78 of 18 August 1978 laying down detailed rules for the offsetting of storage costs for sugar (OJ 1978 L 231, p. 5).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota (OJ 1981 L 262, p. 14).


title: Case C-312/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 June 2015 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 April 2015 in Case T-393/13: SolarWorld AG v European Commission

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/19

         Appeal brought on 24 June 2015 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 April 2015 in Case T-393/13: SolarWorld AG v European Commission
   (Case C-312/15 P)
   (2015/C 302/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Solsonica SpA

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Set aside the General Court’s order in Case T-393/13 with regard to the General Court’s findings that there is no longer a need to adjudicate the Applications for annulment and damages;

               —

               Declare the Application for annulment and the action for damages in Case T-393/13 admissible; and

               —

               Refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for annulment and the action for damages.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the General Court manifestly erred in finding that there was no longer a need to adjudicate on its action for annulment and its action for damages.


title: Case T-324/12: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Knauf Insulation Technology v OHIM — Saint Gobain Cristalería (ECOSE TECHNOLOGY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark ECOSE TECHNOLOGY — Earlier national word mark ECOSEC FACHADAS — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Knauf Insulation Technology v OHIM — Saint Gobain Cristalería (ECOSE TECHNOLOGY)
   (Case T-324/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark ECOSE TECHNOLOGY - Earlier national word mark ECOSEC FACHADAS - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 302/53)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Knauf Insulation Technology (Visé, Belgium) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Saint Gobain Cristalería, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by M. Montañá, S Sebé and I. Carulla, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2012 (Cases R 1193/2011-5 and R 1426/2011-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Saint Gobain Cristalería, SL and Knauf Insulation.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 May 2012 (Cases R 1193/2011-5 and R 1426/2011-5) in so far as the Board of Appeal dismissed the action brought by Knauf Insulation Technology and annulled the decision of the Opposition Division;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Knauf Insulation Technology;

               3.

               Orders Saint Gobain Cristalería, SL to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Knauf Insulation Technology.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.


               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/52

         Removal from the Register of Case T-248/99 (1)

   (2004/C 118/112)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 23 March 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-248/99, Autobedrijf Diepenmaat V.O.F supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.


title: Case F-49/14: Action brought on 22 May 2014  — ZZ and Others v Parliament

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/62

         Action brought on 22 May 2014 — ZZ and Others v Parliament
   (Case F-49/14)
   2014/C 292/80
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: M.C. García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision appointing the applicants’ initial assessor for the reporting year for 2013.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 4 March 2013, confirmed by letter of 8 April 2014, in which the applicants were informed of the appointment of Mr X as initial assessor;

               —

               If necessary, suspend the 2013 staff reporting procedure;

               —

               Suspend Ms X from all her duties with immediate effect;

               —

               Order the Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case C-26/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 March 2016 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Common organisation of agricultural markets — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 — Fifth indent of Part D of Section VI of Part B 2 of Annex I — Fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors — Citrus fruits — Conditions for marketing — Provisions concerning marking — Indications of preserving agents or other chemical substances used in post-harvest processing)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/12

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 March 2016 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission
   (Case C-26/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Common organisation of agricultural markets - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 - Fifth indent of Part D of Section VI of Part B 2 of Annex I - Fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors - Citrus fruits - Conditions for marketing - Provisions concerning marking - Indications of preserving agents or other chemical substances used in post-harvest processing))
   (2016/C 156/16)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Schima, I. Galindo Martín and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


title: Case T-578/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014  — National Iranian Oil Company v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Infra-State body — Standing to bring proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Indication and choice of legal basis — Powers of the Council — Principle of foreseeability of European Union acts — Meaning of providing support to nuclear proliferation — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of the defence and right to effective judicial protection — Proportionality — Right to property)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — National Iranian Oil Company v Council
   (Case T-578/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Infra-State body - Standing to bring proceedings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Indication and choice of legal basis - Powers of the Council - Principle of foreseeability of European Union acts - Meaning of providing support to nuclear proliferation - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of the defence and right to effective judicial protection - Proportionality - Right to property))
   2014/C 292/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: National Iranian Oil Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu and M. Konstantinidis, agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders National Iranian Oil Company to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 February 1999 in Case C-390/95 P: Antillean Rice Mills NV and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Competence of the Council to impose restrictions on the import of agricultural products originating in the overseas countries and territories)

text:
1.5.1999                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 121/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       NV, a company incorporated under the law of the Netherlands
                                                                             Antilles, established in Willemstad, Curaçao, Netherlands
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                     Antilles, applicants at first instance — the Court (Sixth
                                                                             Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the
                                                                             Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), H. Ragnem-
                       of 11 February 1999                                   alm and K.M. Ioannou, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-General; H.
                                                                             von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on
in Case C-390/95 P: Antillean Rice Mills NV and Others v.                    11 February 1999, in which it:
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             1. dismisses the appeal;
(Competence of the Council to impose restrictions on the
import of agricultural products originating in the overseas                  2. orders Antillean Rice Mills NV, European Rice Brokers AVV
                     countries and territories)                                  and Guyana Investments AVV to pay the costs;
                          (1999/C 121/01)                                    3. orders the French Republic and the Italian Republic to bear their
                                                                                own costs.
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                            (1) OJ C 46, 17.2.1996.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-390/95 P: Antillean Rice Mills NV, a company                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
incorporated under the law of the Netherlands Antilles,
established in Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles, Eurpean Rice                                             (Fifth Chamber)
Brokers AVV, a company incorporated under the law of Aruba,                                         of 11 February 1999
established in Oranjestad, Aruba and Guyana Investments
AVV, a company incorporated under the law of Aruba,                          in Case C-237/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
established in Oranjestad, Aruba, represented by P. Glazener,                from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus: in the administrative
of the Amsterdam Bar, W. Knibbeler, of the Rotterdam Bar,                    proceedings brought before that court by AFS Intercul-
and J. Pel, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an adress for service in                                tural Programs Finland ry (1)
Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe —
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance                   (Directive 90/314/EEC on package travel, package holidays
of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended                        and package tours — Scope — Organisation of student
Composition) of 14 September 1995 in Joined Cases T-480/93                                                exchanges)
and T-483/93 Antillean Rice Mills and Others v. Commission
(1995) ECR II-2305, seeking to have that judgment set aside,                                           (1999/C 121/02)
the other parties tot the proceedings being: Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: E. Lasnet and T. van Rijn),
supported by Council of the European Union (Agents: J. Huber                                    (Language of the case: Finnish)
and G. Houttuin), Italian Republic, represented by D. Del
Gaizo, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adélaïde,                                        in the European Court Reports)
French Republic, interveners at first instance, and Trading &
Shipping Co. Ter Beek BV, a company incorporated under                       In Case C-237/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Netherlands law, established in Amsterdam, Alesie Curaçao                    the EC Treaty by the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) for an


title: Case T-441/07: Action brought on 29 November 2007 — Ryanair v Commission

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/27

         Action brought on 29 November 2007 — Ryanair v Commission
   (Case T-441/07)
   (2008/C 37/43)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               To declare in accordance with Article 232 EC that the Commission has failed to act pursuant to its obligations under the EC Treaty by not having defined a position with respect to the applicant's complaint lodged with the Commission on 3 November 2005 followed by a letter of formal notice of 2 August 2007;

               —

               to order the Commission to pay the entire costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings even if, following the bringing of the action, the Commission takes action which in the opinion of the Court removes the need to give a decision or if the Court dismisses the application as inadmissible; and

               —

               to take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   It is submitted as the main plea, that the Commission has failed to conduct a diligent and impartial examination of the complaint lodged by the applicant, alleging the grant of unlawful aid in the form of advantages conferred by the Italian State to Volare, through the write-off of around EUR 20 million in debts owned by Volare to Italian airports and reductions in airport charges and fuel costs. Alternatively, as a subsidiary plea, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to define its position on the applicant's complaint alleging anticompetitive discrimination and, hence, an infringement of Article 82 EC.
   The applicant claims that the measures that are subject to its complaint constitute State aid, fulfilling all conditions set out in Article 87(1) EC. Furthermore, the applicant contends that, in the event the Court found that some of the advantages conferred to Volare were not attributable to the State, because Italian airports might have determined their charges in an autonomous manner, the applicant submits that such advantages would amount to anticompetitive discrimination which cannot be justified by objective reasons and hence, infringes Article 82 EC.
   The applicant further submits that the Commission was under an obligation, in accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (2), to carefully examine the evidence of fact and of law brought to its notice by the complainant in order to decide, within a reasonable time, whether it should initiate proceedings to establish the breach or reject the complaint. The Commission did not take any decision following receipt of the complaint, confirming the breach or dismissing the complaint after having informed the applicant pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, or, finally, issue a fully reasoned decision not to pursue the complaint due to lack of Community interest.
   As a result, the applicant claims that a prima facie infringement of competition law existed and the Commission should have taken less than 21 months to reach such a conclusion and, accordingly, to initiate proceedings. The duration of the Commission's failure to act therefore exceeded reasonable limits.

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 123, p. 18).


title: Case C-285/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 June 2015 — Beca Engineering Srl v Ministero dell’Interno

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 June 2015 — Beca Engineering Srl v Ministero dell’Interno
   (Case C-285/15)
   (2015/C 302/19)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Beca Engineering Srl

      Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

      Question referred

   Does Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003 (2), preclude the requirement that flues must ‘be constructed using non-combustible materials’, in accordance with the requirements of Schedule IX to the Fifth Part, Part II, of Legislative Decree No 152 of 3 April 2006 regarding ‘civil heating systems’, which has not been notified?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 12.

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003 adapting to Council Decision 1999/468/EC the provisions relating to committees which assist the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers laid down in instruments subject to the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2003 L 284, p. 1).


title: Case C-430/03: Action brought on 30 September 2003 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.12.2003             EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 304/13
(5) Must the term ‘offering’ in the provisions referred to in           Pleas in law and main arguments
     Question (1) be construed as also meaning the offering
     (for sale) of original branded goods (bearing a trade mark
     within the meaning of the directive, the UBL and/or                The period for transposition of the directive expired on 30 June
     Regulation 40/94) which are stored in a customs office             2002.
     or warehouse within the territory of a Member State,
     which have not been introduced into the EEA by the
                                                                        (1) OJ 2000 L 14 of 20.1.2000, p. 29.
     proprietor of the trade mark or with his consent, which
     come from outside the EEA and which have the status of
     non-Community goods (for example, T 1 or AAD), in the
     circumstances set out above in Questions (3) and (4)?
(6) With which of the parties does the burden of proof rest
     as regards the acts mentioned above under (1), (2) and             Action brought on 30 September 2003 by the Italian
     (5)?                                                               Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the                                 (Case C-430/03)
    Community trade mark (OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1).
                                                                                (2003/C 304/19)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 30 September 2003 by the Italian Republic
                                                                        represented by Ivo M. Braguglia, acting as Agent and Maurizio
                                                                        Fiorilli, Avvocato dello Stato.
Action brought on 1 October 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        annul Commission Decision C(2003) 2587 def. of 22 July
                         (Case C-410/03)                                2003 in so far as it excludes from Community financing the
                                                                        following entries:
                         (2003/C 304/18)                                a)    Fruit and vegetables — ITALY — 1515 — Flat-rate
                                                                              corrections of 5 % (2000/2001) and 10 % (1999/2000)
                                                                              for shortcomings in controls: EUR 22 251 827,08
                                                                        b)    Olive oil, fibre plants and seed — ITALY —1210 —
                                                                              Flat-rate correction of 2 % for shortcomings in the
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                              management and effectiveness of controls: EUR
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 October
                                                                              13 048 335,00.
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities
represented by Karen Banks and Knut Simonsson, acting as
Agents.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicant submits that the flat-rate corrections concerning
                                                                        the system of aid for the processing of tomatoes and the flat-
—    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations            rate correction concerning the system of production aid for
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with             olive oil, notified by Commission Decision 2003/536/EC (1) of
     Directive 1999/95/EC (1) of the European Parliament and            22 July 2003 (notified under document number C(2003)
     of the Council of 13 December 1999 concerning the                  2587) are unlawful in so far as they are based on inadequate
     enforcement of provisions in respect of seafarers’ hours           investigation and in breach of the rules of co-operation in
     of work on board ships calling at Community ports or               good faith. According to the applicant, the financial corrections
     by failing to communicate those provisions to the                  should therefore be annulled.
     Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under that directive;                                  (1) OJ 2003 L 184 of 23.7.2003, p. 42.
—    order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case T-308/14: Action brought on 30 April 2014  — Neue Halberg-Guss v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/57

         Action brought on 30 April 2014 — Neue Halberg-Guss v Commission
   (Case T-308/14)
   2014/C 223/59
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Neue Halberg-Guss GmbH (Saarbrücken, Germany) (represented by: D. Greinacher, J. Martin and B. Scholtka, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the Commission’s decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure in relation to the support for the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources and from mine gas in accordance with the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, ‘EEG’) and the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users against the Federal Republic of Germany — State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) of 18 December 2013, published in the Official Journal of the EU on 7 February 2014 (OJ 2014 C 37, p. 73), in so far as the Commission classifies the special compensation regime pursuant to Paragraphs 40 and 41 of the EEG as State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs necessarily incurred pursuant to Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107 TFEU
               The applicant claims that the Commission wrongly classified the support for renewable energies by way of the surcharge system and the special compensation regime to reduce the EEG-surcharge as aid and therefore should not have initiated the formal investigation procedure.

                           —

                           In this connection, the applicant contends that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in the preliminary assessment of the issue of whether the special compensation regime constitutes aid, since the special compensation regime, as an exception to the EEG-surcharge, does not grant any advantage which energy-intensive users would not have obtained under normal market conditions.

                           —

                           The applicant also claims that no State resources are affected. Since the proceeds from the EEG-surcharge already did not constitute State resources, no State resources could be affected even by the exception for energy-intensive users.

                           —

                           The applicant further claims that the special compensation regime also does not distort competition. At most, it establishes the competitive conditions which exist without the EEG-surcharge.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
               The applicant claims that, by adopting the decision, the Commission also infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The German scheme to support renewable energy has already been subject to a thorough State aid assessment. In that assessment, the Commission in 2002 concluded that a transfer of State resources is not linked to that scheme. Since the 2012 EEG does not, in this respect, contain any substantial amendments to the legal position at the time, the economic operators concerned ought not to have expected a re-examination, but should have been entitled to rely on the continuance of the scheme.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Misuse of powers
               Lastly, the applicant considers that the Commission misused the discretion afforded to it under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU. By initiating the investigation procedure, the Commission is primarily pursuing the objective of fundamentally harmonising the support for renewable electricity. That fundamental objective is also evidenced by the new draft guidelines for environmental and energy aid, in which the Commission for the first time lays down detailed schemes to support renewable energies. In order to work towards a harmonisation, the Commission would, however, have to apply the procedure for approximating laws pursuant to Articles 116 and 117 TFEU, which is laid down for that purpose.


title: Action brought on 22 December 1995 by Eduardo Capuano against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-240/95)

text:
No C 64/22           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    2 . 3 . 96
    whatsoever, precisely because they are not paid in any         Italian Republic, with an address for service in Luxembourg
    other currency. The second concerns the fourth                 at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias
    subparagraph of Article 82, which refers to the pensions       Hardt .
    which are to be paid in a currency other than Belgian
    francs and provides for a conversion operation only in
    this context .
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                   — annul the applicant's pension statements as from
                                                                       January 1995 on the grounds set forth in the
                                                                       application,
Action brought on 22 December 1995 by Alberto                      — order the Commission to pay the amounts due in their
Castagnoli against the Commission of the European                      entirety, together with interest at 8 % calculated from
                         Communities                                   the dates on which they fell due,
                      ( Case T-239/95 )
                         ( 96/C 64/41 )                            — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
                                                                       proceedings.
               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
An action against the Commission of the European                   in Case T-238/95 Francesco Mongelli v. Commission.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 22 December
1995 by Alberto Castagnoli, a former official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Segrate ( Milan ), represented by Giuseppe Marchesini,
advocate with the right of audience before the Corte di
Cassazione of the Italian Republic, with an address for            Action brought on 22 December 1995 by Vittorio Sadini
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,              against the Commission of the European Communities
8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt .                                                                ( Case T-241/95 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 64/43 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the applicant's pension statements as from                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
    January 1995 on the grounds set forth in the
    application,                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
— order the Commission to pay the amounts due in their             Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 22 December
    entirety, together with interest at 8 % calculated from
    the dates on which they fell due,                              1995 by Vittorio Sadini, a former official of the Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities , residing in Segrate ( Milan ),
— order the defendant to pay the costs of the                      represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advocate with the
    proceedings .                                                  right of audience before the Corte di Cassazione of the
                                                                   Italian Republic, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                   at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those         Hardt .
in Case T-238/95 Francesco Mongelli v. Commission .
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   — annul the applicant's pension statements as from
                                                                       January 1995 on the grounds set forth in the
Action brought on 22 December 1995 by Eduardo Capuano                  application,
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                      ( Case T-240/95 )                            — order the Commission to pay the amounts due in their
                         ( 96/C 64/42 )                                entirety, together with interest at 8 % calculated from
                                                                       the dates on which they fell due,
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
An action against the Commission of the European                        proceedings .
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 22 December                The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
1995 by Eduardo Capuano, a former official of the                  in Case T-238/95 Francesco Mongelli v. Commission.
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Rome, represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advocate with
the right of audience before the Corte di Cassazione of the


               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/18

         Removal from the register of Case C-333/02 (1)

   (2005/C 296/34)

      (Language of the case: Italian)

   By order of 4 April 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-333/02: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.11.2002.


title: Case C-600/14: Action brought on 22 December 2014 — Federal Republic of Germany v Council of the European Union

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/17

      Action brought on 22 December 2014 — Federal Republic of Germany v Council of the European Union
      (Case C-600/14)
      (2015/C 073/24)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, Agents)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Council Decision 2014/699/EU of 24 June 2014 in so far as it refers to the amendment of Article 12 of the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF — Basic Convention) and of Appendices B (Uniform Rules concerning the Contract of International Carriage of Goods by Rail — CIM), D (Uniform Rules concerning Contracts of Use of Vehicles in International Rail Traffic — CUV) and E (Uniform Rules concerning the Contract of Use of Infrastructure in International Rail Traffic — CUI) thereto (Article 1 of the decision in conjunction with point 3, items 4 (in so far as Article 12 of the COTIF — Basic Convention is affected), 5, 7 and 12 of the annex), and

                  —

                  order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

                  1.

                  In the opinion of the German Government, Articles 91 and 218(9) TFEU do not confer on the European Union the competence to develop a common position relating to all the rules which were the subject of consultation and decision-making on the occasion of the 25th meeting of the OTIF Revision Committee. Therefore, by adopting the decision, the Council infringed the principle of conferral pursuant to the first sentence of Article 5(2) TEU.

                  2.

                  Furthermore, the statement of reasons of the contested decision is defective because it is not sufficiently clear from that decision why the European Union has the competence to develop a common position relating to all the rules which were the subject of consultation and decision-making at the 25th meeting of the OTIF Revision Committee.

                  3.

                  In addition, by adopting the contested measure only one day before the start of the 25th meeting of the OTIF Revision Committee, the Council infringed the principle of sincere cooperation in conjunction with the principle of effective legal protection. As a result, the Federal Republic of Germany was deprived of any opportunity to bring the matter before the Court of Justice in due time in order to obtain (interim) legal protection against the contested decision.


title: Case C-173/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 April 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-771/14, ANKO v European Commission

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/28

         Appeal brought on 5 April 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-771/14, ANKO v European Commission

   (Case C-173/17 P)
   (2017/C 168/37)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: Stavroula Paliou, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice of the European Union should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 in Case Τ-771/14 and refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule on the substance.

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant claims that the judgment in Case Τ-771/14 of the General Court of 25 January 2017 contains findings of law which are contrary to rules of EU law and challenges those findings by this appeal.
   The appellant considers that the judgment under appeal should be set aside:

               i

                     First
                  , on the ground of a distortion of the sense of the evidence, in relation to the reliability of the system for the recording of work time.

               ii

                     Second
                  , on the ground of an error in law, in relation to the rules that apply, with respect to the action, to the matters to be proved and the burden of proof.

               iii

                     Third
                  , on the ground of an error in law, in relation to the rules that apply, with respect to the cross-action, to the allocation of the burden of proof.

               iv

                     Fourth
                  , on the ground of breach of an essential procedural requirement and, in particular, on the ground of failure to state reasons in relation to whether the Commission’s claim was certain, of a fixed amount and due.


title: Case C-346/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Ville de Mons v Base Company SA, formerly KPN Group Belgium SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/20/EC — Article 13 — Fee for rights to install facilities — Scope — Municipal regulations making owners of mobile telephone transmission pylons and masts subject to payment of a tax)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Ville de Mons v Base Company SA, formerly KPN Group Belgium SA
   (Case C-346/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 13 - Fee for rights to install facilities - Scope - Municipal regulations making owners of mobile telephone transmission pylons and masts subject to payment of a tax))
   (2015/C 398/02)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Mons

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ville de Mons

      Defendant: Base Company SA, formerly KPN Group Belgium SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding a tax, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, being imposed on the owner of free-standing structures, such as transmission pylons or masts intended to support the antennas required for the functioning of the mobile telecommunication network, and which it was not possible to place on an existing site.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case C-299/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 4(2a) and 10a — Annex IIa — Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 — Special non-contributory benefits)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-299/05) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Articles 4(2a) and 10a - Annex IIa - Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 - Special non-contributory benefits)
   (2008/C 64/04)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M.-J. Jonczy, D. Martin and V. Kreuschitz, Agents)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: G. Ricci and A. Troupiotis, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by M. Veiga, J. Leppo and G. Curmi, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä, J. Heliskoski and E. Bygglin, Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Kruse and R. Sobocki, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. O'Neill and C. Vajda, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the provisions of point 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of 13 April 2005 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 relating to the headings W. Finland (b), X. Sweden (c) and Y. United Kingdom (d), (e) and (f) (OJ 2005 L 117, p. 1) — Special non-contributory cash benefits
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the provisions of point 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005 amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 under the headings ‘FINLAND’, (b), ‘SWEDEN’, (c), and ‘UNITED KINGDOM’, (d) to (f);

               2.

               Maintains the effects of the inclusion of the Disability Living Allowance under the heading ‘UNITED KINGDOM’, (d), of Annex IIa to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation No 647/2005, as regards solely the ‘mobility’ part of that allowance so that, within a reasonable period, appropriate measures can be taken to include it in that annex;

               3.

               Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs and to pay, in equal shares, those of the Commission of the European Communities;

               4.

               Orders the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 1.10.2005.


title: Case C-416/12: Order of the President of the Court of 22 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Wikom Deutsche Telekabel GmbH previously Wikom Elektrik GmbH v VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte mbH

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/58

         Order of the President of the Court of 22 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Wikom Deutsche Telekabel GmbH previously Wikom Elektrik GmbH v VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte mbH
   (Case C-416/12) (1)

   2013/C 225/122
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.


title: Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-74/93 and C-75/93

text:
?.. 9    95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 229/ 17
Appeal brought on 12 July 1995 by the Commission of the                  Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-74/93 and
European Communities against the judgment delivered on                                                C-75/93 ( ] )
2 May 1995 by the Court of First Instance of the European                                            95/C 229/37 )
Communities (Third Chamber extended composition) in
Joined Cases T-163/94 between NTN Corporation and the
Council of the European Union and T-165/94 between                     By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the Fifth Chamber
Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd and the Council of the European                     of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                Union                                  ordered the removal from the register of Joined Cases
                                                                       C-74/93 and C-75/93 : Commission of the European
                        ( Case C-245/95 P)                             Communities v. Council of the European Union, supported
                             95/C 229/35                               by Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, European
                                                                       Parliament, Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 2 May 1995 by              of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Federal Republic
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                of Germany.
(Third Chamber extended composition ) in Joined Cases
T-l 63/94 between NTN Corporation and the Council of the               ( ] ) OJ No C 112 , 22 . 4 . 1993 .
European Union and T-165/94 between Koyo Seiko Co . Ltd
and the Council of the European Union, was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
12 July 1995 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Eric White and Nicholas
Khan, acting as agents, with an address for service in                         Removal from the register of Case C-442/93 (*)
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                                                 95/C 229/38 )
Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
                                                                       By order of 10 May 1995 the President of the Court of
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance,               from the register of Case C-442/93 ( reference for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal
— refer the case back to the Court of First Instance,                  de la Audiencia Nacional ( Madrid, Spain )): Criminal
                                                                       proceedings against Rafael Martin Calvo Martinicorena .
— order the Applicants to pay the costs.
                                                                       (M OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
It is submitted that the Court of First Instance erred in law in
that it :
  ( i ) held that a regulation modifying existing anti-dumping                 Removal from the register of Case C-208/94 (*)
        duties following a review initiated pursuant to
                                                                                ( 95/C 229/39 )
        Articles 14 and 15 of the Basic Regulation must
        establish injury within the meaning of Article 4 ( 1 ) of
        the Basic Regulation;                                          By order of 19 May 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 or, in the alternative, it further erred in law in that it:            from the register of Case C-208/94 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
 ( ii ) held that the infringement of Article 7 ( 9 ) ( a ) of the
        Basic Regulation necessarily entailed the annulment of          f 1 ) OJ No C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994 .
        the contested Regulation .
         Removal from the register of Case C-367/92 H                          Removal from the register of Case C-2 70/94 (*)
                            ( 95/C 229/36 )                                                         ( 95/C 229/40 )
 By order of 30 June 1995 the President of the Court of                 By order of 18 May 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 Case C-367/92 : French Republic v.                from the register of Case C-270/94 : Commission of the
 Commission of the European Communities.                                European Communities v. Italian Republic .
  H OJ No C 288 , 5 . 11 . 1992 .                                        (») OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .


title: Case C-466/03: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Baden-Baden (Germany)) — Albert Reiss Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH v Land Baden-Württemberg (Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — National provisions which provide for notarial fees to be charged for the authentication of the transfer of shares in limited liability companies — Tax decision — Classification as a duty similar to capital duty — Prior formality — Duties on the transfer of securities — Duties paid by way of fees or dues)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Baden-Baden (Germany)) — Albert Reiss Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-466/03) (1)

   (Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - National provisions which provide for notarial fees to be charged for the authentication of the transfer of shares in limited liability companies - Tax decision - Classification as a ‘duty similar to capital duty’ - Prior formality - Duties on the transfer of securities - Duties paid by way of fees or dues)
   (2007/C 199/02)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landgericht Baden-Baden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Albert Reiss Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH

      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Baden-Baden — Interpretation of Article 10(c) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — Increase in the capital of a private limited company by means of a contribution of shares held in another company — Charges demanded for the drawing up of the notarially attested act recording the share transfer.
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 10(c) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, precludes the charging of notarial fees for the authentication of a transfer of shares in a company made as a contribution in the course of an increase in the share capital of a capital company, in a system characterised by the fact that notaries are employed as civil servants and that the fees are, at least in part, paid to the State to subsidise public expenditure.

      (1)  OJ C 21, 24.1.2004.


title: Case C-230/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 2 May 2017 — Érdem Deha Altiner, Isabel Hanna Ravn v Udlændingestyrelsen (Danish Immigration Service)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 2 May 2017 — Érdem Deha Altiner, Isabel Hanna Ravn v Udlændingestyrelsen (Danish Immigration Service)
   (Case C-230/17)
   (2017/C 213/30)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Érdem Deha Altiner, Isabel Hanna Ravn

      Defendant: Udlændingestyrelsen

      Questions referred

   Does Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, read in conjunction and by analogy with the Free Movement Directive (1) preclude a Member State from refusing to grant a derived right of residence to a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen who is a national of that Member State and who has returned to that Member State after having exercised his or her right of free movement, where the family member does not enter the Member State’s territory or submit an application for a right of residence as a natural extension of the Union citizen’s return?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).


title: Case T-32/07: Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Slovakia v Commission

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/29

         Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Slovakia v Commission
   (Case T-32/07)
   (2007/C 69/58)
   Language of the case: Slovak
   Parties

      Applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba, Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               in the event that the Court of First Instance does not agree with the opinion set out at paragraph 95 of the application, preserve, in accordance with Article 231(2) EC, those effects of the contested decision on the basis of which the applicant decides the total quantity of allowances and their allocation to individual businessmen on their territory;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the Commission's Decision of 29 November 2006, which concerns the national allocation plan for the allocation of emissions allowances for greenhouse gases notified by the Slovak Republic in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). According to the contested decision, certain aspects of the Slovak national allocation plan are incompatible with Annex III to Directive No 2003/87/EC.
   The applicant submits in support of its action that the Commission infringed Article 9(3) in conjunction with Article 9(1) and Article 11(2) of Directive No 2003/87/EC and the principle of legitimate expectations in that, irrespective of the national allocation plan, in the contested decision it applied its own method of setting the maximum total annual average amount of emissions allocations, appropriating to itself without authority the task which the directive entrusted to the Member States.
   Furthermore, the applicant submits that, even if the defendant was entitled to apply its own method of setting the total quantity of emissions allowances, by failing to consult the applicant about the use of that method before the publication of the contested decision, it breached the principle of loyal cooperation of the institutions of the Community with the authorities of the Member States.
   Moreover, the defendant infringed Article 9(3) in conjunction with Article 1 and Article 9(1) and criteria 1 to 4 of Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC and the general legal principle of proportionality, in that the method of setting the total amount of emissions allocations which it applied fails to take into account the need to increase electricity production on the applicant's territory from carbon intensive sources as a result of the obligation to close two power-plant units of the nuclear power station at Jaslovské Bohunice.
   Finally, the applicant asserts that there has been a breach of the essential procedural requirement to state adequate reasons.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 32).


title: Case C-407/04 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 January 2007 — Dalmine SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Seamless steel tubes market — Protection of domestic markets — Supply contract — Rights of the defence — Self-incrimination — Anonymous evidence — Fine — Statement of reasons — Equal treatment — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Size of the relevant market and of the undertaking concerned — Attenuating circumstances)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 January 2007 — Dalmine SpA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-407/04 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Seamless steel tubes market - Protection of domestic markets - Supply contract - Rights of the defence - Self-incrimination - Anonymous evidence - Fine - Statement of reasons - Equal treatment - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Size of the relevant market and of the undertaking concerned - Attenuating circumstances)
   (2007/C 56/04)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Dalmine SpA (represented by: A. Sinagra, M. Siragusa, F. Moretti and A. L. Valvo, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Whelan and F. Amato, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2004 in Case T-50/00 Dalmine v Commission, partially annulling Commission Decision 2003/382/EC of 8 December 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/E-1/35.860-B seamless steel tubes) (notified under document number C (1999) 4154), and setting the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Dalmine SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case T-480/13: Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2014  — You-View.tv v OHIM — YouView TV (YouView+) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark YouView+ — Earlier Benelux figurative trade mark You View You-View.tv — Late submission of documents — Discretion granted by Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Concept of a ‘provision to the contrary’  — Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2014 — You-View.tv v OHIM — YouView TV (YouView+)
   (Case T-480/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark YouView+ - Earlier Benelux figurative trade mark You View You-View.tv - Late submission of documents - Discretion granted by Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Concept of a ‘provision to the contrary’ - Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
   2014/C 282/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: You-View.tv (Anvers, Belgium) (represented by: S. Criel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: YouView TV Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2013 (Case R 2112/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between You-View.tv and YouView TV Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 June 2013 (Case R 2112/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between You-View.tv and YouView TV Ltd.

               2)

               Dismisses the remainder of the heads of claim.

               3)

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 334, 23.11.2013.


title: Case T-499/14: Action brought on 23 June 2014 — Ertico — Its Europe v Commission

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/14

         Action brought on 23 June 2014 — Ertico — Its Europe v Commission
   (Case T-499/14)
   2014/C 380/19
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organisation — Intelligent Transport Systems & Services Europe (Ertico — Its Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Wellinger and K. T'Syen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Validation panel of the European Commission of 15 April 2014 holding that the applicant does not qualify as a micro, small and medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (L 124, p. 36); and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Validation Panel’s conclusion that the applicant would not qualify as a micro, small and medium-sized enterprise is based on a manifestly wrong reading of Article 3(4) of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by concluding that the applicant would not qualify as a micro, small and medium-sized enterprise and by leaving the door open for the Commission to re-claim the FP7 grants that were awarded to the applicant in the past, the Validation Panel breached the fundamental principles of European law of: (i) sound administration; (ii) legal certainty; and (iii) the protection of the applicant’s legitimate expectations.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Validation Panel infringed the applicant’s rights of defence and breached the principle of sound administration in that it failed to give the applicant the opportunity to effectively make its views known.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Validation Panel failed to comply with its duty to duly motivate its decision.


title: Case C-229/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen by order of that court of 27 May 2004 in case of Crailsheimer Volksbank eG against Klaus Conrads, Frank Schulzke and Petra Schulzke-Lösche, and Joachim Nitschke.

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen by order of that court of 27 May 2004 in case of Crailsheimer Volksbank eG against Klaus Conrads, Frank Schulzke and Petra Schulzke-Lösche, and Joachim Nitschke.
   (Case C-229/01)
   (2004/C 201/17)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen (Germany) of 27 May 2004, received at the Court Registry on 2 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Crailsheimer Volksbank eG against Klaus Conrads, Frank Schulzke and Petra Schulzke-Lösche, and Joachim Nitschke, on the following questions:

               1.

               Is it compatible with Article 1(1) of Directive 85/577/EEC (1) for the rights of consumers, in particular their right of cancellation, to be made subject not only to the existence of a doorstep-selling situation as referred to in Article 1(1) of the directive but also to additional criteria for responsibility, such as a trader's deliberate use of a third party in the conclusion of the agreement or a trader's negligence in respect of the third party's conduct in connection with the doorstep selling?

               2.

               Is it compatible with Article 5(2) of Directive 85/577/EEC for a mortgage borrower, who not only concluded the loan agreement in a doorstep-selling situation but also arranged, in that situation, for the loan to be paid into an account which, in practice, is no longer at his disposal, to have to pay back the loan to the lender if the agreement is cancelled?

               3.

               Is it compatible with Article 5(2) of Directive 85/577/EEC for the mortgage borrower, if he is required to pay back the loan following cancellation, to have to do so not on the instalment repayment dates laid down in the agreement but immediately in a one-off sum?

               4.

               Is it compatible with Article 5(2) of Directive 85/577/EEC for the mortgage borrower, if he is also required to pay back the loan following cancellation, to have to pay interest on it at the normal market rate?

      (1)  OJ L 372, p. 31.


title: Case T-236/07: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2010 — Federal Republic of Germany v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Clearance of accounts — 2006 Financial year — Date of application of the first subparagraph of Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Binding force of a unilateral declaration by the Commission annexed to the minutes of a Coreper meeting)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2010 — Federal Republic of Germany v Commission
   (Case T-236/07) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Clearance of accounts - 2006 Financial year - Date of application of the first subparagraph of Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Binding force of a unilateral declaration by the Commission annexed to the minutes of a Coreper meeting)
   2010/C 346/77
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by M. Lumma and J. Möller, and subsequently by J. Möller and N. Graf Vitzthum, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, Agent)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2007/327/EC of 27 April 2007 on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the 2006 financial year (OJ 2007 L 122, p. 51)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case C-143/08: Action brought on 7 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/18

         Action brought on 7 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-143/08)
   (2008/C 142/29)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Kaduczak and P. Dejmek, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the purpose of giving effect to Commission Directive 2006/73/EC (1) of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of the adoption of such measures, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposing Directive 2006/73/EC expired on 31 January 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 241 of 2.9.2006, p. 26-58.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 July 2004 in Case T-384/02: Fernando Valenzuela Marzo v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Pay — Installation allowance — Article 9(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Period of one year)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/21

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 15 July 2004
   in Case T-384/02: Fernando Valenzuela Marzo v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Pay - Installation allowance - Article 9(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Period of one year)
   (2004/C 239/43)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-384/02: Fernando Valenzuela Marzo, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing at Brussels (Belgium), represented by M.–A. Lucas, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Curral and V. Joris, with an address for service in Luxembourg) - application for, first, annulment of the Commission's decisions of 16 November 2001 and 13 February 2002, refusing the applicant the second half of the installation allowance on the ground that his family did not settle at his place of employment within the period laid down in the regulations of one year from his taking up his post and, second, an order that the Commission pay him the second half of the installation allowance with interest thereon at an annual rate of 8 % - the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.


title: Case T-373/09: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Pucci International (Emidio Tucci) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Emidio Tucci — Earlier Community figurative and national word and figurative marks Emilio Pucci and EMILIO PUCCI — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Pucci International (Emidio Tucci)
   (Case T-373/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Emidio Tucci - Earlier Community figurative and national word and figurative marks Emilio Pucci and EMILIO PUCCI - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 355/45
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by J.L. Rivas Zurdo, E. López Camba and E. Seijo Veiguela and, subsequently, by J.L. Rivas Zurdo and E. Seijo Veiguela, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Emilio Pucci International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, M. Boletto and E. Gavuzzi, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2009 (Joined Cases R 770/2008-2 and R 826/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Emilio Pucci International BV and El Corte Inglés, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders El Corte Inglés, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case T-76/08: Action brought on 15 February 2008 — E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Others v Commission

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/22

         Action brought on 15 February 2008 — E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Others v Commission
   (Case T-76/08)
   (2008/C 116/40)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (Wilmington, United States), DuPont Performance Elastomers LLC (Wilmington, United States), DuPont Performance Elastomers SA (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Boyce and A. Lyle-Smythe, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1(b) of the decision insofar as it finds that E.I. DuPont was a party to the infringement;

               —

               annul Article 2(b) of the decision insofar as it finds E.I. DuPont liable to pay a fine;

               —

               reduce the fines imposed on the applicants pursuant to Article 2(b) of the decision; and

               —

               order the Commission to bear its own costs and those incurred by the applicants.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants seek partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 (Case COMP/F/38.629 — Chloroprene Rubber), by which the Commission found that the applicants, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by participating in a single and continuing agreement and/or concerted practice in the chloroprene rubber sector.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment of the facts, erred in law and failed to provide adequate reasoning for its decision:

               —

               in holding the applicant E.I. DuPont liable for the involvement of the joint venture DuPont Dow Elastomers in the cartel for the period after the applicant E.I. DuPont had transferred its entire elastomers business, including chloroprene rubber, to DuPont Dow Elastomers;

               —

               in imposing a fine on E.I. DuPont for the period prior to the transfer of its elastomer activities to DuPont Dow Elastomers, when the Commission was in fact time-barred from doing so;

               —

               in not having demonstrated a legitimate interest in issuing a decision against E.I. DuPont in this case;

               —

               in not having shown that Bayer and DuPont Dow Elastomers had reached an agreement or an understanding over the closures of plants;

               —

               in using a multiplier for duration of 6.5 equating six years and six full months, when the duration of the involvement of DuPont Dow Elastomers was only of six years and one full month;

               —

               in not granting the applicants the maximum available leniency reduction of 30 %; and

               —

               in finding that an employee of DuPont Dow Elastomers participated in the cartel.


title: Case C-547/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 28 October 2016 — Gasorba, S.L., Josefa Rico Gil and Antonio Ferrándiz González v Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos, S.A.

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 28 October 2016 — Gasorba, S.L., Josefa Rico Gil and Antonio Ferrándiz González v Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos, S.A.
   (Case C-547/16)
   (2017/C 022/13)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Gasorba, S.L., Josefa Rico Gil and Antonio Ferrándiz González

      Defendant: Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Under Article 16 (‘Uniform application of Community competition law’) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, does Commission Decision (2) of 12 April 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/B-1/38.348 — Repsol C.P.P.) preclude a national court from declaring that the agreements to which that decision applies are invalid on account of the duration of the exclusive supply period, even though they may be declared invalid for other reasons such as, for example, the imposition of a minimum retail price by the supplier on the buyer (or reseller)?

               2.

               If so, are long-term contracts to which the Commitment Decision applies to be regarded as benefiting from an individual exemption, under Article 101(3) TFEU, as a consequence of that decision?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 176, p. 104.


title: Case T-68/13: Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — Novartis v OHIM (CARE TO CARE) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark CARE TO CARE — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/20

      Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — Novartis v OHIM (CARE TO CARE)
      (Case T-68/13) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark CARE TO CARE - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2014/C 71/36)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Novartis AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 November 2012 (Case R 953/2012-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign CARE TO CARE as a Community trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Novartis AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.


               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/2

         Assignment of Judges to the Chambers of three Judges
   (2008/C 301/03)
   At its meeting on 30 September 2008, the Court decided to assign the Judges to the Chambers as follows:
   Fifth Chamber
   Mr Ilešič, President of the Chamber
   Mr Tizzano, Mr Borg Barthet, Mr Levits, Mr Kasel, Judges
   Sixth Chamber
   Mr Bonichot, President of the Chamber
   Sir Konrad Schiemann, Mr Makarczyk, Mr Kūris, Mr Bay Larsen, Ms Toader, Judges
   Seventh Chamber
   Mr Ó Caoimh, President of the Chamber
   Mr Cunha Rodrigues, Mr Klučka, Mr Lõhmus, Ms Lindh, Mr Arabadjiev, Judges
   Eighth Chamber
   Mr von Danwitz, President of the Chamber
   Ms Silva de Lapuerta, Mr Juhász, Mr Arestis, Mr Malenovský, Judges


title: Case T-365/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — Bateaux Mouches v OHIM — Castanet (BATEAUX MOUCHES) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark BATEAUX MOUCHES — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 51(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) and Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/29

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — Bateaux Mouches v OHIM — Castanet (BATEAUX MOUCHES)
   (Case T-365/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark BATEAUX MOUCHES - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 51(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) and Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 32/53)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA (Paris, France) (represented by: D. de Leusse, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Jean-Noël Castanet (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J. Sulzer, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2006 (Case R 1172/2005-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Jean-Noël Castanet and the Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case T-106/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Synergy Hellas v Commission (Arbitration clause — Sixth and seventh framework programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Early termination of contracts — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Good faith — Non-contractual liability — Reclassification of the action — Coexisting applications for contractual and non-contractual liability — Early warning system (EWS) — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Causal link)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Synergy Hellas v Commission
   (Case T-106/13) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Sixth and seventh framework programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Early termination of contracts - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Good faith - Non-contractual liability - Reclassification of the action - Coexisting applications for contractual and non-contractual liability - Early warning system (EWS) - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Causal link))
   (2016/C 007/23)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Angelopoulos and K. Damis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Sauka, and by L. Athanassiou and G. Gerapetritis, lawyers)

      Re:

   Applications for contractual and non-contractual liability made in the context of implementing several contracts which the Commission has concluded with the applicant under the sixth and seventh framework programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.