title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 March 2005 in Joined Cases T-228/00, T-229/00, T-242/00, T-243/00, T-245/00 to T-248/00, T-250/00, T-252/00, T-256/00 to T-259/00, T-265/00, T-267/00, T-268/00, T-271/00, T-274/00 to T-276/00, T-281/00, T-287/00 and T-296/00, Gruppo ormeggiatori del porto di Venezia Soc. coop. rl, and Others v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Commission decision declaring incompatible with the common market unlawful aid schemes and requiring repayment of incompatible aid — National procedure for repayment precluded — Action for annulment — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/20

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 March 2005
   in Joined Cases T-228/00, T-229/00, T-242/00, T-243/00, T-245/00 to T-248/00, T-250/00, T-252/00, T-256/00 to T-259/00, T-265/00, T-267/00, T-268/00, T-271/00, T-274/00 to T-276/00, T-281/00, T-287/00 and T-296/00, Gruppo ormeggiatori del porto di Venezia Soc. coop. rl, and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Commission decision declaring incompatible with the common market unlawful aid schemes and requiring repayment of incompatible aid - National procedure for repayment precluded - Action for annulment - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 171/36)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Joined Cases T-228/00, T-229/00, T-242/00, T-243/00, T-245/00 to T-248/00, T-250/00, T-252/00, T-256/00 to T-259/00, T-265/00, T-267/00, T-268/00, T-271/00, T-274/00 to T-276/00, T-281/00, T-287/00 and T-296/00, Gruppo ormeggiatori del porto di Venezia Soc. coop. rl, established in Venice (Italy), represented by F. Munari, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-228/00, Gruppo ormeggiatori del porto di Chioggia Piccola Soc. coop. rl, established in Venice, represented by S. Carbone, A. Taramasso and F. Munari, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-229/00, Compagnia lavoratori portuali Soc. coop. rl, Società cooperativa lavoratori portuali San Marco Venezia Soc. coop. rl, established in Venice, represented by A. Bortoluzzi and C. Montagner, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicants in Case T-242/00, Portabagagli del porto di Venezia Soc. coop. rl, established in Venice, represented by A. Bortoluzzi and C. Montagner, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-243/00, Abibes SpA, established in Venice, represented by G. Orsoni, G. Simeone and A. Schmitt, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-245/00, Fluvio Padana Srl, established in Venice, represented by G. Orsoni, G. Simeone and A. Schmitt, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-246/00, Serenissima motoscafi Srl, established in Venice, represented by G. Orsoni, A. Pavanini and A. Schmitt, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-247/00, Integrated Shipping Co. SpA (ISCO), established in Venice, represented by G. Orsoni, G. Simeone and A. Schmitt, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-248/00, Società cooperativa veneziana motoscafi, Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa ‘San Marco’ motoscafi in servizio pubblico Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa serenissima taxi Soc. coop. rl, established in Venice, represented by G. Orsoni, A. Pavanini and A. Schmitt, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicants in Case T-250/00, Cooperativa ducale fra gondolieri di Venezia, Soc. coop. rl, Gondolieri Bauer Soc. coop. rl, established in Venice, represented by M. Giantin, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicants in Case T-252/00, Sacra Srl, established in Venice, represented by M. Marinoni, G.M. Roberti and F. Sciaudone, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-256/00, Fondamente nuove servizio taxi e noleggio, Soc. coop. rl, Bucintoro motoscafi servizio taxi e noleggio Soc. coop. rl, established in Venice, represented by R. Vianello, A. Bortoluzzi and C. Montagner, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicants in Case T-257/00, Multiservice Srl, established in Venice, represented by A. Bortoluzzi and C. Montagner, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-258/00, Veneziana di navigazione SpA, established in Venice, represented by A. Bortoluzzi and C. Montagner, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-259/00, Cooperativa traghetto S. Lucia Soc. coop. rl, established in Venice, represented by A. Bortoluzzi, C. Montagner and F. Stivanello Gussoni, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-265/00, Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, established in Venice, represented, in Cases T-265/00 and T-267/00, by A. Bortoluzzi, C. Montagner and F. Stivanello Gussoni and, in Cases T-274/00 to T-276/00, T-281/00, T-287/00 and T-296/00, by A. Bianchini, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Cases T-265/00, T-267/00, T-274/00 to T-276/00, T-281/00, T-287/00 and T-296/00, Cooperativa Daniele Manin fra gondolieri di Venezia Soc. coop. rl, established in Venice, represented by A. Bortoluzzi, C. Montagner and F. Stivanello Gussoni, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-267/00, Conepo servizi Soc. coop. rl, established in Venice, represented by A. Biagini, S. Scarpa and P. Pettinelli, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-268/00, Ligabue Catering SpA, established in Venice, represented by A. Vianello, M. Merola and A. Sodano, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-271/00, Verde sport SpA, established in Venice, represented by A. Bianchini, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-274/00, Cooperativa carico scarico e trasporti scalo fluviale Soc. coop. rl, established in Venice, represented by A. Bianchini, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-275/00, Cipriani SpA, established in Venice, represented by A. Bianchini, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-276/00, Cooperativa trasbagagli Soc. coop. rl, established in Venice, represented by A. Bianchini, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-281/00, Cooperativa fra portabagagli della stazione di Venezia Srl, established in Venice, represented by A. Bianchini, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-287/00, Cooperativa braccianti mercato ittico ‘Tronchetto’ Soc. coop. rl, established in Venice, represented by A. Bianchini, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-296/00, supported, in Cases T-228/00, T-229/00, T-242/00, T-243/00, T-247/00, T-250/00, T-252/00, T-256/00 to T-259/00, T-265/00, T-267/00, T-268/00 and T-271/00, by the Italian Republic, represented by U. Leanza, acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg, intervener, against Commission of the European Communities (agent: V. Di Bucci, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij, N.J Forwood, I. Pelikánová, S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 10 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Cases T-228/00, T-229/00, T-242/00, T-243/00, T-245/00 to T-248/00, T-250/00, T-252/00, T-256/00 to T-259/00, T-265/00, T-267/00, T-268/00, T-271/00, T-274/00 to T-276/00, T-281/00, T-287/00 and T-296/00 are joined for the purposes of the remainder of the proceedings.

               2.

               The actions in Cases T-228/00, T-229/00, T-242/00, T-243/00, T-245/00 to T-248/00, T-250/00, T-252/00, T-256/00 to T-259/00, T-267/00, T-268/00, T-271/00, T-275/00, T-276/00, T-281/00, T-287/00 and T-296/00 are dismissed as inadmissible.

               3.

               The actions in Cases T-265/00 and T-274/00 are dismissed in part as inadmissible in so far as they were brought by the Cooperativa traghetto S. Lucia Soc. coop. rl (Case T-265/00) and Verde sport SpA (Case T-274/00).

               4.

               In Cases T-228/00, T-229/00, T-242/00, T-243/00, T-245/00 to T-248/00, T-250/00, T-252/00, T-256/00 to T-259/00, T-268/00 and T-271/00, the applicants, on the one hand, and the Commission, on the other, are to bear their own costs.

               5.

               In Cases T-267/00, T-275/00, T-276/00, T-281/00, T-287/00 and T-296/00, Cooperativa Daniele Manin fra gondolieri di Venezia Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa carico scarico e trasporti scalo fluviale Soc. coop. rl, Cipriani SpA, Cooperativa trasbagagli Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa fra portabagagli della stazione di Venezia Srl and Cooperativa braccianti mercato ittico ‘Tronchetto’ Soc. coop. rl are to bear their own costs. In those cases the Commission is to bear the costs which it has incurred in connection with the actions in so far as they were brought by those companies. The Comitato ‘ Venezia vuole vivere’ is to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred to date by the Commission in connection with the actions in Cases T-267/00, T-275/00, T-276/00, T-281/00, T-287/00 and T-296/00, in so far as they were brought by the Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’.

               6.

               The applicants in Case T-265/00, Cooperativa traghetto S. Lucia, and in Case T-274/00, Verde sport, are to bear their own costs. In those two cases the Commission is to bear the costs it has incurred to date in connection with the actions brought by those two companies.

               7.

               The Italian Republic is to bear its own costs in Cases T-228/00, T-229/00, T-242/00, T-243/00, T-247/00, T-250/00, T-252/00, T-256/00 to T-259/00, -T-267/00, T-268/00 and T-271/00, and the costs which it has incurred in Case T-265/00 in connection with the action brought by the Cooperativa traghetto S. Lucia.

               8.

               The remainder of the costs are reserved in Cases T-265/00 and T-274/00.

      (1)  OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.


title: Case T-235/14: Action brought on 17 April 2014  — ArcelorMittal Hamburg and Others v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/14

         Action brought on 17 April 2014 — ArcelorMittal Hamburg and Others v Commission
   (Case T-235/14)
   2014/C 223/19
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: ArcelorMittal Hamburg GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), Bregal Bremer Galvanisierungs GmbH (Bremen, Germany), ArcelorMittal Hochfeld GmbH (Duisburg, Germany) und ArcelorMittal Ruhrort GmbH (Duisburg) (represented by: H. Janssen and G. Engel, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 in State aid case SA.33995 (2013/C) — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           The applicants claim that the contested decision infringes Article 107(1) TFEU because the EEG-surcharge provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG) and the special compensation regime did not constitute an allocation of State or State-controlled resources. All the facts relevant to the qualification of those measures were determined in the preliminary proceedings between the Commission and the Federal Republic of Germany. There were no longer any doubts, which the Commission should have found in a proceeding pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty. (1)

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(1) TFEU and the principle of legal certainty

                           —

                           The applicants submit in that regard that the Commission infringed Article 108(1) TFEU and the principle of legal certainty by applying the procedure for new aid pursuant to Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999 instead of the procedure for existing aid pursuant to Article 17 et seq. of Regulation No 659/1999 in order to review its provisional assessment of the EEG as aid. In that regard, the applicants observe in particular that, by decision of 22 May 2002, the Commission did not classify the 2000 EEG as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because there was no transfer of State resources. The changes from the 2000 EEG to the 2012 EEG were not substantial in comparison to the Commission decision of 22 May 2002. The Commission, therefore, could have asserted an amended legal opinion in a proceeding pursuant to Article 108(1) TFEU without impacting on the applicants.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of audi alteram partem

                           —

                           The applicants also claim that the defendant adopted the contested decision without previously giving the applicants the opportunity to provide comments.

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


title: Case C-408/10: Order of the President of the Court of 1 March 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/17

         Order of the President of the Court of 1 March 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-408/10) (1)

   2011/C 186/29
   Language of the case: Estonian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


title: Case C-355/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 26 July 2012 — Nintendo Co., Ltd and Others v PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 26 July 2012 — Nintendo Co., Ltd and Others v PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl
   (Case C-355/12)
   2012/C 295/41
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Milano

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Nintendo Co., Ltd, Nintendo of America Inc., Nintendo of Europe GmbH

      Defendants: PC Box Srl, 9Net Srl

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 6 of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) be interpreted, including in the light of recital 48 in the preamble thereto, as meaning that the protection of technological protection measures attaching to copyright-protected works or other subject matter may also extend to a system, produced and marketed by the same undertaking, in which a device is installed in the hardware which is capable of recognising on a separate housing mechanism containing the protected works (videogames produced by the same undertaking as well as by third parties, proprietors of the protected works) a recognition code, in the absence of which the works in question cannot be visualised or used in conjunction with that system, the equipment in question thus incorporating a system which is not interoperable with complementary equipment or products other than those of the undertaking which produces the system itself?

               2.

               Should it be necessary to consider whether or not the use of a product or component whose purpose is to circumvent a technological protection measure predominates over other commercially important purposes or uses, may Article 6 of Directive 2001/29/EC be interpreted, including in the light of recital 48 in the preamble thereto, as meaning that the national court must adopt criteria in assessing that question which give prominence to the particular intended use attributed by the right holder to the product in which the protected content is inserted or, in the alternative or in addition, criteria of a quantative nature relating to the extent of the uses under comparison, or criteria of a qualitative nature, that is, relating to the nature and importance of the uses themselves?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.


title: Case T-263/07: Action brought on 17 July 2007 — Estonia v Commission

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/12

         Action brought on 17 July 2007 — Estonia v Commission
   (Case T-263/07)
   (2007/C 223/17)
   Language of the case: Estonian
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by Lembit Uibo, Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   Annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 4 May 2007 concerning the national greenhouse gas allocation plan submitted by Estonia in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1)

   Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission's decision of 4 May 2007 concerning the national greenhouse gas allocation plan submitted by Estonia in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council should be annulled on the following grounds:

               —

               Infringement of Article 9(1) and (3) and Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC and the consequent exceeding of competence;

               —

               Manifest errors of assessment, since the Commission did not take into account correct information available to it, but relied on false assumptions which directly and essentially affected the outcome of the contested decision and the determination of the overall amount of emission allowances;

               —

               Infringement of Article 175(2)(c) EC, since under the EC Treaty the Commission does not have competence to adopt measures which significantly affect a Member State's choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply;

               —

               Breach of the principle of good administration, since the Commission did not take account when taking its decision of all the essential circumstances present in the individual case and did not verify whether all the assumptions made when taking its decision were correct;

               —

               Breach of the obligation to state 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 T-760/15: Action brought on 23 December 2015 — Netherlands v Commission

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/50

         Action brought on 23 December 2015 — Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-760/15)
   (2016/C 059/58)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, B. Koopman and M. de Ree, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 21 October 2015 with reference number C(2015) 7143 concerning State aid SA.38374 (2014/C ex 2014/NN) implemented by the Netherlands in favour of Starbucks;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an incorrect application of Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the Commission finds that the Advanced Pricing Agreement (‘APA’) is selective in nature.

                           —

                           First, the Commission did not adequately — and separately — demonstrate that the selectivity criterion was fulfilled.

                           —

                           Second, the Commission erroneously took the general Netherlands corporation tax system as a reference. The correct reference for the APA is Article 8b(1) of the Wet op de Vennootschapsbelasting (Law on Corporation Tax) and the Verrekenprijsbesluit (Settlement Price Decree). In the APA effect is simply given to that reference framework.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an incorrect application of Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the Commission assesses the existence of an advantage by reference to an EU law arm’s length principle. However, the applicant argues that there is no arm’s length principle in EU law and that that principle is not part of a State aid assessment.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an incorrect application of Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the Commission finds that the APA confers an advantage on Starbucks Manufacturing EMEA BV as a result of the selection of the ‘Transactional Net Margin Method’ as settlement price methodology.
               The Commission incorrectly states that the methodology agreed in the APA does not provide a reliable approach to a market outcome. Moreover, the Commission does not demonstrate that the remuneration to Alki and the surcharge on the cost price of the green beans have no business value.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging an incorrect application of Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the Commission states that the APA confers an advantage on Starbucks Manufacturing EMEA BV as a result of the manner of applying the ‘Transactional Net Margin Method’.
               The Commission incorrectly proceeds on the assumption that the ‘Transactional Net Margin Method’ agreed in the APA was applied in an erroneous manner and results in an advantage for Starbucks Manufacturing EMEA BV. The Commission in no way demonstrates that the better — in its view — application of the ‘Transactional Net Margin Method’ leads to a higher taxable income and the absence of an advantage.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to exercise due care in so far as the Commission did not assess and include all the relevant information in the decision and also uses as a basis anonymous information, or at least information that has never been shared with the Netherlands Government.


title: Case T-30/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 May 2010 — Reagens v Commission (Application for interim measures — Competition — Commission decision imposing a fine — Bank guarantee — Application for suspension of operation of the decision — Financial loss — Absence of exceptional circumstances — No urgency)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/39

         Order of the President of the General Court of 12 May 2010 — Reagens v Commission
   (Case T-30/10 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Competition - Commission decision imposing a fine - Bank guarantee - Application for suspension of operation of the decision - Financial loss - Absence of exceptional circumstances - No urgency)
   2010/C 179/69
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Reagens SpA (San Giorgio di Piano, Italy) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and L. Toffoletti, D. Gullo and E. De Giorgi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Bourke and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the Commission decision of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/38.589 — heat stabilisers)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-363/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2016 — Secolux v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a call for tenders for a public services contract — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the privacy and integrity of the individual — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — Partial access — Overriding public interest — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2016 — Secolux v Commission
   (Case T-363/14) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a call for tenders for a public services contract - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the privacy and integrity of the individual - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Partial access - Overriding public interest - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 410/12)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Secolux, Association pour le contrôle de la sécurité de la construction (Capellen, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Prüm-Carré and E. Billot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 1 and 14 April 2014 refusing to grant the applicant full access to certain documents relating to a call for tenders under reference number 02/2013/OIL and to safety checks to be carried out in various buildings in Luxembourg (OJ 2013/S 156-271471).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Secolux, Association pour le contrôle de la sécurité de la construction, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case T-60/09: Action brought on 16 February 2009 — Herhof v OHIM — Stabilator (stabilator)

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/20

         Action brought on 16 February 2009 — Herhof v OHIM — Stabilator (stabilator)
   (Case T-60/09)
   2009/C 102/32
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (Solms, Germany) (represented by: A. Zinnecker and T. Bösling, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Stabilator sp. z o.o. (Gydnia, Poland)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Anuul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 December 2008 in Joined Cases R 483/2008-4 and R 705/2008-4;

               —

               Order the applicant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Stabilator sp. z o.o.

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘stabilator’ for goods and services in Classes 19, 37 and 42, Application No 4 068 961

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘STABILAT’ for goods in Classes 1, 7, 11, 20, 37, 40 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition allowed in part and application rejected in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment in part of the contested decision and rejection of the opposition

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, (1) because there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue or at least a likelihood of association.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-224/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Aid for the processing of tomatoes and production of olive oil)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/19

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-224/04) (1)

   (EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Aid for the processing of tomatoes and production of olive oil)
   (2009/C 6/38)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: M. Fiorilli, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Visaggio and C. Cattabriga, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2003/536/EC of 22 July 2003 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the ‘Guarantee’ Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2003 L 184, p. 42) to the extent that it excludes certain expenditure by the Italian Republic in the financial years 1999 to 2002.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 13.12.2003 (formerly Case C-430/03).


title: Case C-232/15 P: Appeal brought on 20 May 2015 by ultra air GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 March 2015 in Case T-377/13 ultra air GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/6

         Appeal brought on 20 May 2015 by ultra air GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 March 2015 in Case T-377/13 ultra air GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

   (Case C-232/15 P)
   (2015/C 262/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: ultra air GmbH (represented by: C. König, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 March 2015 in Case T-377/13 in so far as the General Court did not annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 May 2013 (Case R 1100/2011-4);

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the appellant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward two pleas in law:
   First plea in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1)

               (a)

               Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 has been infringed, first, in so far as the allegedly descriptive meaning of the mark ‘ultra.air ultrafilter’, in the sense of ‘air of extremely high quality obtained through ultrafilters’, cannot, according to paragraphs 18 and 19 of the judgment under appeal, be derived directly and without further consideration from the mark. In paragraph 19, the General Court found that ‘ultra.air’ as such has no specific meaning and describes neither a quality or nature. The General Court arrived at the allegedly descriptive meaning of the mark only by means of an assumption that the relevant public would not assess the name ‘ultra.air’ as it stands, but would supplement it with words that describe a quality, such as ‘pure’ or ‘refined’.

               (b)

               Secondly, Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 has been infringed with respect to goods constituting ‘liquid-filtering machinery and apparatus’ in that the divergent descriptive meaning of ‘ultra.air ultrafilter’ in the sense of ‘extremely high-quality product of filtration, obtained through ultrafilters’ accepted by the General Court cannot a fortiori be derived directly and without further consideration from the mark. The General Court itself arrived at this divergent meaning only after going through a number of stages in its reasoning: first, the relevant public would have to interpret ‘ultra.air ultrafilter’ in the sense of ‘air of extremely high quality obtained through ultrafilters’. Secondly, it would have to conclude that this purported meaning is not descriptive for the liquid-filtering machinery and apparatus actually being assessed, but that it is descriptive for air-filtering machinery and apparatus. Thirdly, it would then have to derive ‘extremely high-quality product of filtration, obtained through ultrafilters’ from the specifically established meaning of ‘ultra.air ultrafilter’. The purported meaning thereby obtained includes a number of words that are not present in the mark (‘product of filtration’; ‘high-quality’), while simply omitting words that are (‘air’).

         Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
   Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 has been infringed on the same grounds as Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

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


title: Appeal brought on 10 March 1997 by Atlanta AG against the judgment delivered on 11 December 1996 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-521/93 between, of the one part, Atlanta AG and Others and, of the other part, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-104/97 P)

text:
10 . 5 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 142/ 11
Procurement Office ) of 7 November 1996 , which was                         Community incurs liability even for lawful legislative
received at the Court Registry on 10 March 1997, for a                      acts. That plea was put forward in the initial
preliminary ruling in the review proceedings brought by                     application under the heading 'Sonderopfer'
Josef Kollensperger GmbH & Co KG and Atzwanger AG                           (exceptional burdens ). In any event, the submissions in
against Gemeindeverband Bezirkskrankenhaus Schwaz                           the reply do not constitute a new plea in law, but at
( association of municipalities for the Schwaz district                     most a new argument. Liability for lawful legislative
hospital ) on the following questions :                                     acts rests on the same legal basis as liability for
                                                                            unlawful ones, namely the second paragraph of
( a ) Is Article 2 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC (') of                   Article 215 of the Treaty. The objective pursued by the
      21 December 1989 to be interpreted as meaning that                    applicants, namely damages for legislative acts of the
      the (Tyrol ) Regional Public Procurement Office,                      Community, is the same . The task of the Court is also
      established by the (Tyrol ) regional law of 6 June 1994               the same, since the rationale for liability for lawful
      on the award of public contracts ( LGB1 No 87/1994 ),                 legislative acts is essentially the same as that for
      is a review body within the meaning of Article 2 ( 8 ) of             unlawful ones, namely that individual parties are not
      the Directive ?                                                       to be singled out to bear exceptional burdens.
( b ) Did the abovementioned law on the award of public                — The Court of First Instance infringed Community law
      contracts adequately secure the transposition into                    by dismissing the pleas in law based on breach of the
      national law of Council Directive         89/665/EEC of               rights of the defence, the principle of non
      21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws,                     discrimination, the principle of the protection of
      regulations and administrative provisions relating to                 legitimate expectations, the fundamental freedom to
      the application of review procedures to the award of                  pursue an economic activity, and the prohibition on
      public supply and public works contracts, in regard to                delegation of legislative competence . In particular, the
      the review procedures mentioned in Article 1 thereof?                 Court of First Instance declined, when applying the
                                                                            principle of non-discrimination and in the context of
(') OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 33 .                                 the freedom to pursue an economic activity, to take
                                                                            account of the facts of the case adduced before it, i.e.
                                                                            to recognize the individual effects of the Regulation in
                                                                            the particular case of the applicant. If that approach
                                                                            were correct, examination of basic rights ( including
                                                                            the principle of non-discrimination) in an individual
Appeal brought on 10 March 1997 by Atlanta AG against                       case, as continually requested by the applicant, could
the judgment delivered on 11 December 1996 by the                           never take place in principle . Examination would
Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition ) of the Court of                      always be curtailed at the outset as to whether
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                          application of the contested rule ( in this case Title IV
T-521/93 between, of the one part, Atlanta AG and                           of the Regulation ) to the particular circumstances in
Others and, of the other part, the Council of the European                 which an individual party is placed infringes
 Union and the Commission of the European Communities                       fundamental rights . It would be conceivable in those
                                                                           circumstances that, despite having its fundamental
                        ( Case C-104/97 P                                   rights individually affected by the application of a
                           ( 97/C 142/23 )                                  Community measure, the applicant would have no
                                                                           procedure available for complaint.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 December
                                                                       (') OJ No C 40 , 8 . 2 . 1997, p . 15 .
1996 by the Fourth Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Case T-521 /93 between, of the one part, Atlanta AG
and Others and, of the other part, the Council of the
European Union and the Commission of the European
Communities, supported by the French Republic and the
United Kingdom, was brought before the Court of Justice                Reference to the Court for preliminary rulings by the
of the European Communities on 10 March 1997 by                        Pretura Circondariale di Trento by an order of 7 March
Atlanta AG, represented by Erik Undritz and Gerrit                     1997 in the proceedings pending before that court
Schohe, Rechtsanwalte, with an address for service in                         between Leonardo Gulli and Ente Poste Italiane
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden , 34b Rue                                               ( Case C-105/97)
Philippe II, L-2340 Luxembourg.
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/24 )
The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the
judgment of the Court of First Instance (').                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Pretura
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Circondariale di Trento (Magistrate's Court for the
                                                                       District of Trento ) of 7 March 1997, which was received
— The Court of First Instance was procedurally incorrect               at the Court Registry on 13 March 1997, for a
      in ruling inadmissible ( pursuant to Article 48 ( 2 ) of its     preliminary ruling in the case Leonardo Gulli and Ente Po
      Rules of Procedure ) the applicants ' plea that the              ste Italiane, on the following question:


title: Case T-203/10 RENV: Order of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — Stichting Woonpunt and Others v Commission (State aid — Social housing — Scheme of aid granted to housing corporations — Existing aid — Decision accepting Member State’s commitments — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/16

         Order of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — Stichting Woonpunt and Others v Commission
   (Case T-203/10 RENV) (1)

   ((State aid - Social housing - Scheme of aid granted to housing corporations - Existing aid - Decision accepting Member State’s commitments - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2015/C 221/22)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Stichting Woonpunt (Maastricht, Netherlands); Stichting Havensteder, formerly Stichting Com.wonen (Rotterdam, Netherlands); Woningstichting Haag Wonen (The Hague, Netherlands); and Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented initially by P. Glazener and E. Henny and subsequently by P. Glazener, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal and S. Noë, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented initially by T. Materne and J.-C. Halleux, and subsequently by J.-C. Halleux, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN) (Voorburg, Pays-Bas) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 — Netherlands — Existing and special project aid to housing corporations.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Orders Stichting Woonpunt, Stichting Havensteder, Woningstichting Haag Wonen and Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium and Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN) to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case F-81/08: Action brought on 13 October 2008 — Ketselidou v Commission

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/59

         Action brought on 13 October 2008 — Ketselidou v Commission
   (Case F-81/08)
   (2008/C 313/108)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Zoe Ketselidou (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant's request for revision of the calculation of the pension annuities to be taken into account for the transfer of pension rights acquired in Greece to the Community scheme.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision dated 10 January 2008 in which the Appointing Authority rejected the applicant's request for revision of the calculation of the pension annuities that she had acquired in the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Communities as a result of the transfer of pension rights by Greek social security institutions;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case T-394/06: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2012 — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — ‘Guarantee’ section — Clearance of accounts — Expenditure excluded from financing — Irregularities or negligence attributable to administrations or bodies of Member States — Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 and Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 — Excessive delay in the assessment by the Commission of the communications sent pursuant to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 — Reasonable time-limit)

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/6

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2012 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-394/06) (1)

   (EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ section - Clearance of accounts - Expenditure excluded from financing - Irregularities or negligence attributable to administrations or bodies of Member States - Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 and Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 - Excessive delay in the assessment by the Commission of the communications sent pursuant to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 - Reasonable time-limit)
   2012/C 319/07
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga, acting as Agent, and M. Moretto, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2006/678/EC of 3 October 2006 concerning the financial treatment to be applied, in the context of clearance of expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, in certain cases of irregularity by operators (OJ 2006 L 278, p. 24).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case C-240/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg by judgment of that court of 1 June 2005 in Administration de l'Enregistrement et des Domaines v EURODENTAL SARL

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg by judgment of that court of 1 June 2005 in Administration de l'Enregistrement et des Domaines v EURODENTAL SARL
   (Case C-240/05)
   (2005/C 193/29)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'appel du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg of 1 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 3 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Administration de l'Enregistrement et des Domaines and EURODENTAL SARL on the following questions:

               1.

               Does a delivery of goods which, when made within a Member State, is exempted by reason of Article 13A(1)(e) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, and does not give rise to the right to deduct input tax pursuant to Article 17 of the directive, fall within the ambit of Article 15(1) and (2) of the directive as worded prior to 1 January 1993 or Article 28cA(a), applicable as of 1 January 1993, and thus within the ambit of Article 17(3)(b) of the directive giving rise to the right to deduct input tax when the delivery is made by an operator established in a Member State of the Community to an operator established in another Member State and when the conditions relating to the application of Article 15(1) and (2) of the directive as worded prior to 1 January 1993 and of Article 28cA(a), applicable as of 1 January 1993, are met?

               2.

               Does a supply of services which, when made within a Member State, is exempted by reason of Article 13A(1)(e) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, and does not give rise to the right to deduct input tax pursuant to Article 17 of the directive fall within the ambit of Article 15(3) as worded prior to 1 January 1993 (no exemptions were laid down for 1993) and thus within the ambit of Article 17(3)(b) of the directive giving rise to the right to deduct input tax when the delivery is made by an operator established in a Member State of the Community to an operator established in another Member State and when the conditions relating to the application of Article 15(3) as worded prior to 1 January 1993 are met?

      (1)  OJ L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-522/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 — Substances that deplete the ozone layer — Recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of those substances)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-522/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 - Substances that deplete the ozone layer - Recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of those substances)
   (2008/C 128/19)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: A. Hubert, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (OJ 2000 L 244, p. 1) — Articles 16(5) and 17(1) — Failing to adopt measures defining the minimum qualification requirements for personnel responsible for recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances referred to in Article 2 of the Regulation and contained in refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat pump equipment, fire protection systems and fire extinguishers — Failure to adopt all precautionary measures practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of controlled substances and absence of checks on the possible presence of leakages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that,

                           —

                           by failing to define the minimum qualification requirements for certain members of personnel working in recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances in accordance with Article 16(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer, and

                           —

                           in respect of the Walloon Region, by failing to take all precautionary measures practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of controlled substances and by failing to carry out annual checks to establish the presence or not of leakages in accordance with Article 17(1) of Regulation No 2037/2000,

                     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of that regulation;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case C-98/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark)) — Nordania Finans A/S, BG Factoring A/S v Skatteministeriet (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 19(2) — Calculation of the deductible proportion — Exclusion of amounts of turnover attributable to the supplies of capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business — Notion of capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business — Vehicles purchased by a leasing company to be leased and subsequently sold on termination of the respective leasing contracts)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark)) — Nordania Finans A/S, BG Factoring A/S v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-98/07) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 19(2) - Calculation of the deductible proportion - Exclusion of amounts of turnover attributable to the supplies of capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business - Notion of ‘capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business’ - Vehicles purchased by a leasing company to be leased and subsequently sold on termination of the respective leasing contracts)
   (2008/C 107/12)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Referring court
   Højesteret
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Nordania Finans A/S, BG Factoring A/S

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Article 19 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Calculation of the deductible proportion — Inclusion or not of the amount of the turnover from the sale of vehicles of a vehicle leasing company at the end of the leasing contracts
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 19(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, is to be interpreted as meaning that the notion of ‘capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business’ does not include vehicles which a leasing undertaking purchases with a view, as in the case in the main proceedings, to leasing them and subsequently selling them upon termination of the respective leasing contracts, as the sale of such vehicles at the end of those contracts is an integral part of the usual business activities of that undertaking.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case T-181/13: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014  — Sharif University of Technology 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 — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — Sharif University of Technology v Council
   (Case T-181/13) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment))
   2014/C 282/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sharif University of Technology (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Happold, Barrister)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of (i) Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71), in so far as it listed the applicant in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55), in so far as it listed the applicant in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it listed Sharif University of Technology in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

               2)

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it listed Sharif University of Technology in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

               3)

               Orders the effects of Decision 2012/829 and Implementing Regulation No 1264/2012 to be maintained, as regards Sharif University of Technology, for a period of two months from the date of delivery of this judgment;

               4)

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Sharif University of Technology.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 February 2005 in Case T-354/03 Gemma Reggimenti v European Parliament (Officials — Reimbursement of dependent child's travel expenses — Division if two married officials divorce)

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/28

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 16 February 2005
   in Case T-354/03 Gemma Reggimenti v European Parliament (1)

   (Officials - Reimbursement of dependent child's travel expenses - Division if two married officials divorce)
   (2005/C 93/56)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-354/03: Gemma Reggimenti, an official of the European Parliament, residing in Woluwé-Saint-Lambert (Belgium), represented by C. Junion, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the European Parliament (Agents: L.G. Knudsen and A. Bencomo Weber, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of the Parliament's decision of 27 May 2003, confirmed by letter of 17 July 2003, by which it decided, under Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations to divide, from 2002, the reimbursement of travelling expenses for the applicant's daughter between the two divorced officials — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and O. Czúcz, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 February 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares the action inadmissible as regards the fixed-rate travel expenses prior to 2002.

               2.

               Declares the action inadmissible also in so far as it contains an application for an injunction.

               3.

               Dismisses the reminder of the claims in the application as unfounded.

               4.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 10.1.2004.


title: Case C-489/03: Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 21/20                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                       24.1.2004
—     Order the kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                      Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
                                                                                (Case C-490/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2004/C 21/38)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
C-485/03.
                                                                        An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-
                                                                        vember 2003 by Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by José Luis Buendía Sierra of its Legal Service,
                                                                        acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
  the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
                                                                        —     declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                              period all the measures necessary to comply with
                         (Case C-489/03)                                      Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission Decision of
                                                                              11.7.2001 relating to a State aid scheme applied by Spain
                                                                              to certain recently established firms in Vizcaya (notified
                          (2004/C 21/37)                                      under No C(2001)1763, or, in any event, by failing to
                                                                              notify the Commission of such provisions in accordance
                                                                              with Article 4, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
                                                                              its obligations under that decision;
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-              —     Order the kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
vember 2003 by Commission of the European Communities,
represented by José Luis Buendía Sierra of its Legal Service,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
—     declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed           C-485/03.
      period all the measures necessary to comply with
      Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission Decision of
      11.7.2001 relating to a State aid scheme applied by
      Spain to a number of recently created undertakings in
      Guipúzcoa (notified under No C(2001)1761) in the form
      of a tax credit of 45% of the investments made, or, in any
      event, by failing to notify the Commission of such
      provisions in accordance with Article 4, the Kingdom of           Action brought on 20 November 2003 (fax on 13 Novem-
      Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that             ber 2003) by the Republic of Austria against the Com-
      decision;                                                                     mission of the European Communities
—     Order the kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case C-492/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/39)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
C-485/03.                                                               ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 20 November 2003 (fax on 13 November
                                                                        2003) by the Republic of Austria, represented by Dr Harald
                                                                        Dossi, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  1 December 2005  in Case C-213/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) Ewald Burtscher v Josef Stauderer (Free movement of capital — Article 56 EC — Declaration procedure in respect of the acquisition of built-on land — Retroactive invalidity of the transaction if declaration by the purchaser is submitted after the due date)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 1 December 2005
   in Case C-213/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) Ewald Burtscher v Josef Stauderer (1)

   (Free movement of capital - Article 56 EC - Declaration procedure in respect of the acquisition of built-on land - Retroactive invalidity of the transaction if declaration by the purchaser is submitted after the due date)
   (2006/C 36/21)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-213/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), made by decision of 29 April 2004, received at the Court on 19 May 2004, in the proceedings between Ewald Burtscher and Josef Stauderer — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský, J. P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and U. Lõhmus, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 December 2005 in which it ruled:
   Article 56(1) EC precludes the application of national legislation such as the Vorarlberg Land Transfer Law (Vorarlberger Grundverkehrsgesetz) of 23 September 1993, in its amended version, under which the mere fact that the requisite declaration of acquisition is submitted after the due date results in the retroactive invalidity of the property transaction concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 190 of 24.07.2004.


title: Case T-689/15: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — Marcas Costa Brava v EUIPO — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl — Earlier EU figurative mark café crem — Relative ground for refusal — Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — Marcas Costa Brava v EUIPO — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)
   (Case T-689/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl - Earlier EU figurative mark café crem - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 078/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Marcas Costa Brava, SL (Sils, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Excellent Brands JMI Ltd (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Majer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 September 2015 (Case R 2491/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Marcas Costa Brava and Excellent Brands JMI.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Marcas Costa Brava, SL, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.


title: Case T-371/06: Action brought on 4 December 2006 — Germany v Commission

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/24

         Action brought on 4 December 2006 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-371/06)
   (2007/C 42/43)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, C. Schulze-Bahr, C. von Donat (lawyer))

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2006) 4193 final of 25 September 2006 on the reduction of the financial contribution of the ERDF under Objective 2 of the programme for North Rhine-Westphalia (ERFD No 97.02.13.005) awarded by Commission Decision No C(97) 1120 of 7 May 1997;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision, the Commission reduced the contribution of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under Objective 2 of the programme for Nordrhein-Westfalen.
   In support of its claim, the applicant alleges breach of Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 (1), on the ground that the conditions for a reduction were not fulfilled. In this connection, it submits, in particular, that the deviations from the indicative financing plan do not amount to a significant alteration of the programme.
   Even if the programme were significantly altered, the applicant submits that the Commission gave its prior consent pursuant to its ‘Guidelines for the financial closure of operational measures (1994-1999) under the Structural Funds’ (SEK (1999) 1316).
   Assuming that the conditions for a reduction are met, the applicant submits that the defendant did not use its discretion in relation to the specific programme. According to the applicant, a reduction would not amount to a misuse of powers only if it appeared to be justified, as a whole, in the light of implementation of the programme and attainment of the objective. According to the applicant, as the defendant did not use this discretion, it also failed to provide justification.
   Finally, the contested decision infringes the principle of sound administration, in that the applicant was forced by that decision to bring a new action against a decision pending before the courts at the time of bringing that action.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 March 2005 in Case C-90/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 7(1) of Directive 1999/32/EC — Failure to supply the report relating to the sulphur content of liquid fuels used on its national territory)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 3 March 2005
   in Case C-90/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Article 7(1) of Directive 1999/32/EC - Failure to supply the report relating to the sulphur content of liquid fuels used on its national territory)
   (2005/C 106/15)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-90/04: Action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 23 February 2004 — Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Schieferer and G. Valero Jordana) v Republic of Austria (Agent: E. Riedl) –the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk (Rapporteur) and P. Kūris, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 3 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to supply to the Commission of the European Communities, before 30 June 2002, the report for 2001, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Council Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels and amending Directive 93/12/EEC;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.04.2004.


title: Case C-428/12: Action brought on 20 September 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/15

         Action brought on 20 September 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-428/12)
   2012/C 379/26
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Galindo Martin and G. Wilms, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 34 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, by making it compulsory — in Ministerial Decree FOM/734/2007 of 20 March 2007 supplementing the Rules for the implementation of the Law on the Regulation of Inland Transport in respect of authorisations for the transport of goods by road — that, in order to obtain an ‘authorisation for the private, own-account transport of goods’, no more than five months must have elapsed since the first registration of the first vehicle of an undertaking’s fleet, and by failing to justify that requirement;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The requirement that, in order to obtain an ‘authorisation for the private, own-account transport of goods’, no more than five months must have elapsed since the first registration of the first vehicle of an undertaking’s fleet, constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports, in breach of Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. That restriction is not justified either by one of the public interest grounds set out in Article 36 TFEU or by an imperative requirement.
   As regards the existence of a restriction of the free movement of goods, in practice the rules in question restrict to a greater extent the import of vehicles already registered in other Member States than the purchase of vehicles registered in Spain. In addition, given that vehicles registered in other Member States already satisfy the European and/or national technical requirements in order to be considered roadworthy in the Member States of origin, the abovementioned rules fail to have regard to the principle of mutual recognition, since a vehicle which is roadworthy in another Member State must also be roadworthy in Spain. Furthermore, the measure in question constitutes a restriction of use such as those examined by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-110/05 Commission v Italy [2009] ECR I-519 and Case C-142/05 Mickelsson and Roos [2009] ECR I-4273.
   As regards the justifications put forward by the Kingdom of Spain, namely, road safety and environmental protection, the Commission takes the view that the rules at issue are not proportionate to the objectives pursued and do not contribute to their attainment in a consistent, systematic manner.
   The fact that a vehicle has been registered for the first time more than five months beforehand is no indication that it is not technically fit to be used in commercial activities nor is it an indication of the impact of its use on the environment. By contrast, a roadworthiness test would allow, at least to some extent, the technical condition of the vehicle to be determined and would be a less restrictive measure. Similarly, an examination of the technical characteristics of the vehicle, in conjunction where appropriate with a roadworthiness test, should make it possible to evaluate the level of pollution emitted by that vehicle.
   Furthermore, it is difficult to see how the Kingdom of Spain can impose a five-month age-limit for the first vehicle while allowing other vehicles to be added to the fleet upon condition only that the average age-limit for the fleet does not exceed six years.


title: Removal from the register of T-99/96

text:
12. 7. 97             I ENM                   Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 212/33
have been conferred on the Council . Consequently, the                              Removal from the register of T-99/96 (')
abovementioned respects in which it is claimed to be                                                 ( 97/C 212/64 )
illegal are indicative of a misuse of powers .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(') Council Regulation ( EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/95 of                By order of 13 May 1997 the President of the Fourth
    17 November 1995 introducing special measures to terminate           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
    the service of officials of the European Communities as a
    result of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden ( OJ No
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
    L 280, 23 . 11 . 1995 , p. 1 ).                                      Case T-99/96 : Franz Eppe v. Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities .
                                                                         ( 1 ) OJ No C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .


title: Action brought on 22 October 1996 by Catherine Patronis against the Council of the European Union (Case T-168/96)

text:
No C 388/8             EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21 . 12 . 96
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               The applicant claims that the Court should :
                    of 21 November 1996
in Case T- 144/95 : Christos Michael v. Commission of the              — annul the decision of the appointing authority not to
                 European Communities 0 )                                   promote the applicant to grade B 1 in the 1995
                                                                            promotion procedure,
(Promotion — Practical guide to the promotions
procedure — Category A officials — List of officials most
deserving of promotion — List of promoted officials —                  — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision of
          Decision adversely affecting an official)                         the Advisory Committee on grade B promotions not to
                                                                            include the applicant in the list of officials proposed
                            ( 96/C 388/15 )                                 for promotion to grade B 1 in the 1995 promotion
                                                                            procedure,
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs.
In Case T-144/95 : Christos Michael, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Brussels, represented by Lucas Vogel and Beatrice                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Gribomont, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christian                     The applicant, an official in the service of the Council,
Kremer, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of                  was promoted to grade B 2 on 1 June 1987. She states,
the European Communities ( Agents: Ana Maria Alves                     first, that she has been suffering for over two years from
Vieira and Alberto Dal Ferro ) — application for                       health problems which have on several occasions
annulment of the implied decision rejecting the complaint              necessitated her hospitalization for very short periods .
lodged by the applicant on 7 December 1994 on the basis
of Article 90 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of           The list of officials , proposed by the Advisory Committee
the European Communities against a decision of the                     for promotion to grade B 1 , dated 7 December 1995 , does
Commission drawing up the list of officials promoted to                not contain the name of the applicant. She considers that
Grade A 4 in the 1994 promotion procedure — the Court                  the representatives of the administration opposed her
of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K.                   promotion by reason of her absence on sick leave . She
Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J.              pleads infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations,
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a             breach of the opinion of the Joint Committee and
judgment on 21 November 1996 , the operative part of                   contravention of Staff Communication No P 76/93 of
which is as follows :
                                                                       16 July 1993 .
1 . The Commission 's decision not to promote the
    applicant to Grade A 4 in the 1994 promotion                       By her second plea, the applicant alleges infringement of
    procedure is annulled.                                             the obligation imposed by Article 25 of the Staff
                                                                       Regulations to provide a statement of reasons . The
                                                                       applicant maintains that the Council refused to
2 . The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.                        communicate to her the criteria             used to assess the
                                                                       comparative merits of officials eligible for promotion to
0 ) OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .                                      grade B 2 . The contested decisions are also vitiated by a
                                                                       total absence of any statement of reasons, or at least by a
                                                                       blatantly inadequate statement of reasons, and must
                                                                       consequently be annulled .
Action brought on 22 October 1996 by Catherine Patronis
        against the Council of the European Union
                          ( Case T-168/96 )
                            ( 96/C 388/ 16                             Action brought on 22 October 1996 by Jean-Pierre
                                                                       Pierard against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                ( Case T- 169/96 )
An action against the Council of the European Union was                                           ( 96/C 388/ 17
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 22 October 1996 by Catherine Patronis,
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis,                                  (Language of the case: French)
Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices               An action against the Commission of European
of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                         Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case T-687/15: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — Marcas Costa Brava v EUIPO — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl — Earlier EU figurative mark café crem — Relative ground for refusal — Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — Marcas Costa Brava v EUIPO — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)
   (Case T-687/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl - Earlier EU figurative mark café crem - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 078/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Marcas Costa Brava, SL (Sils, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Excellent Brands JMI Ltd (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Majer, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2015 (Case R 2757/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Marcas Costa Brava and Excellent Brands JMI.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Marcas Costa Brava, SL, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.


Avis juridique important

|

E1997P0007

Action brought on 20 October 1997 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway (Case E-7/97)

Official Journal C 020 , 22/01/1998 P. 0017 - 0017

Action brought on 20 October 1997 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway (Case E-7/97) (98/C 20/09)An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 20 October 1997 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Håkan Berglin, Director of the Legal and Executive Affairs Directorate, acting as Agent, EFTA Surveillance Authority, 74, rue de Trèves, B-1040 Brussels.The applicant claims that the Court should:1. declare that, by failing to adopt, within the time limit prescribed, the national provisions necessary to comply with the Act referred to in point 16f of Annex XVIII of the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 92/104/EEC of 3 December 1992 on the minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers in surface and underground mineral-extracting industries), as adapted by way of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations within the meaning of Article 13 of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.2. order the Kingdom of Norway to pay the costs of the proceedings.Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:- Directive 92/104/EEC sets out certain minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers in surface and underground mineral-extracting industries,- according to Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, acts referred to or contained in the Annexes to the Agreement or in decisions of the EEA Joint Committee shall be binding on the Contracting Parties and be, or be made, part of the internal legal order,- by Decision No 7/94 of 21 March 1994 of the EEA Joint Committee, which entered into force on 1 July 1994, Directive 92/104/EEC was added as a new point 16f of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement (see Articles 1 and 3 of, and point A(2) of Annex 16 to the Decision),- it follows from Article 2 of the Decision and Article 13 of the Act, as adapted by way of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, that Norway was to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Act by 3 December 1994 and to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of the measures taken to this end,- at the expiry of the abovementioned time limit, Norway had not taken the legislative measures necessary to comply with the Act. Nor had such measures been taken at the end of the time limit set by the EFTA Surveillance Authority in its reasoned opinion, in which it requested Norway to take the measures necessary to comply with the Act. Norway has, therefore, failed to comply with its obligations within the meaning Article 13 of the Act and Article 7 of the EEA


title: Case T-39/06: Action brought on  3 February 2006  — Transcatab v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/35

         Action brought on 3 February 2006 — Transcatab v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-39/06)
   (2006/C 86/72)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Transcatab S.p.A. in Liquidation (Caserta, Italy) (represented by: Cristoforo Osti and Alessandra Prastaro, avvocati)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               Annul in part Article 1.1 of Commission Decision C (2005) 4012 def. of 20 October 2005, in which it found that SCC (and therefore Alliance One) should be held to be jointly liable for the infringements of Article 81 committed by Transcatab;

               —

               Consequently reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs in full, including those of Transcatab.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The decision which is the subject of the present action is the same as that in Case T-11/06 Tabacchi v Commission. As regards the applicant, the decision holds the company Alliance One International jointly liable in its capacity as the ultimate holding company TRANSCATAB.
   In support of its claims, the applicant submits that the Commission:

               —

               erred in law in holding Alliance One International liable for the conduct of TRANSCATAB. In particular, the defendant infringed the principles regarding the burden of proof, failed to demonstrate the influence exercised by Alliance One International and, consequently, exceeded the limit of 10 % of turnover.

               —

               Erred in finding the infringement in question to be very serious and not, at most, serious, by reason of the virtually non-existent effect of the agreement on the relevant market, the downstream market and consumers, as well as the limited size of the relevant geographical market.

               —

               Infringed the principles of proportionality and equality in fixing the basic amount of the fine at EUR 10 million.

               —

               Failed to distinguish the conduct in the period 1995 to 1998 from that of the following period and considered TRANSCATAB alone to be liable for the former. Indeed, by holding the applicant liable also for the conduct from 1999 to 2002, the Commission infringed the principle of equality, in so far as it acknowledged as an attenuating circumstance for the associations the fact that the legal context was confused but did not apply the same finding to the processors.

               —

               infringed the principle of non bis in idem in that it penalised TRANSCATAB and the other processors once in their capacity as members of the Associazione professionale Trasformatori Tabacchi Italiani, and again as individual processors.

               —

               Erred in failing to apply any of the attenuating circumstances cited by the applicant, such as its cooperation, the failure to perform the agreements, the interruption of those agreements or the existence of a reasonable doubt as to the nature of the infringing conduct.


title: Case C-219/08: Action brought on 22 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/15

         Action brought on 22 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-219/08)
   (2008/C 183/30)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by requiring, in the event that workers who are nationals of third countries are posted by Community undertakings in the framework of a provision of services:

                           (a)

                           authorisation prior to the exercise of the economic activity;

                           (b)

                           that the residence permit issued in the State in which the employer is established must be valid three months beyond the end of the service provided;

                           (c)

                           that a worker must have been in the service of the same employer providing the services for at least sixth months;

                     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC.

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission claims, in essence, that the requirements imposed by the defendant in the event that workers who are nationals of third countries are posted by providers of services established in a Member State other than Belgium restrict the free provision of services and at the same time discriminate against those providers in relation to their competitors established in Belgium.
   By its first complaint, the Commission claims that the system of authorisation prior to the exercise of an economic activity represents a disproportionate obstacle to the free provision of services. That obstacle cannot moreover be justified by any reason of general interest, or by reference to the rules of the Schengen acquis.
   By its second complaint, the applicant calls in question the disproportionate nature of the requirement that the residence permit issued in the Member State in which the employer is established must be valid three months beyond the end of the service provided.
   By its third complaint, the Commission states that despite the positive legislative amendments effected by the defendant, the requirement that a worker must have been in the service of the same employer providing the services for at least six months represents an unjustified restriction on the free provision of services.