title: Case C-416/11 P: Appeal brought on 8 August 2011 by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 24 May 2011 in Case T-115/10: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Commission

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/17

         Appeal brought on 8 August 2011 by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 24 May 2011 in Case T-115/10: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Commission
   (Case C-416/11 P)
   2011/C 298/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, Agent, D. Wyatt QC, V. Wakefield, Barrister)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant asks the Court that:

               —

               the Order of the General Court be set aside;

               —

               the United Kingdom's action for annulment be declared admissible and the case be referred back to the General Court so that it may examine the substance of the United Kingdom's action for annulment;

               —

               the Commission be ordered to pay the United Kingdom's costs of the present proceedings and those arising at first instance relating to the plea of inadmissibility; and

               —

               the costs be reserved as to the remainder.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The United Kingdom appeals against the Order of the General Court of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) in Case T-115/10 United Kingdom v Commission, in which the General Court ruled that the United Kingdom's action for the annulment of the listing of the Spanish Site of Community Importance ES6120032 (‘Estrecho Oriental’) in Commission Decision 2010/45/EU (1) was inadmissible.

               2.

               The General Court found that the listing of Site ES6120032 in Commission Decision 2010/45/EU was merely confirmatory of the earlier listing of that Site in Commission Decision 2009/95/EC (2). It was wrong to do so, since the listing of Site ES6120032 in Decision 2010/45/EU was adopted on the basis of substantial new facts, namely that ES6120032:

                           (a)

                           overlaps and purports to include the greater part of British Gibraltar territorial waters (‘BGTW’) and

                           (b)

                           overlaps and purports to include the entire area of a pre-existing United Kingdom Site of Community Importance, with the code UKGIB0002 and the name ‘Southern Waters of Gibraltar’.

               3.

               At the time of the first listing of ES6120032 in Decision 2009/95/EC, it seems that only Spain had actual knowledge of the fact that ES6120032 overlaps with UKGIB0002 and BGTW. Certainly the United Kingdom did not know this fact, and there has been no indication that the Commission or the Habitats Committee (which adopted Decision 2009/95/EC) knew this fact.

               4.

               By the time of the second listing of ES6120032 in Decision 2010/45/EU, the United Kingdom, the Commission and the Habitats Committee all knew this highly relevant fact, as evidenced by the debate which preceded the adoption of this measure.

               5.

               Since there was no actual knowledge of the fact of the overlapping at the time of adoption of Decision 2009/95/EC, the General Court focussed on constructive knowledge, namely whether there could have been knowledge of the fact of the overlap at the time. It held that neither the United Kingdom nor the Commission could not have known of the fact at that time, and so (according to its reasoning) Decision 2010/45/EU was ‘merely confirmatory’ of the earlier listing.

               6.

               The General Court fell into serious errors of law in its consideration of constructive knowledge. In particular:

                           (a)

                           It erred as to the identity of the parties whose constructive knowledge was legally relevant (which forms
                                 ground one
                               of the present appeal). In particular, the General Court misunderstood case-law and ignored legal principle in considering the constructive knowledge of the Commission. The United Kingdom submits that only the constructive knowledge of the United Kingdom was relevant. Alternatively, if the constructive knowledge of any party other than the United Kingdom is relevant, it must be that of the decision-maker (i.e. the Commission and the Habitats Committee), and not that of the Commission alone; and

                           (b)

                           It erred as to the standard to be applied when determining what ‘could have’ been known (which forms
                                 ground two
                               of the present appeal). In particular, the General Court failed to direct itself properly or at all as to the proper standard, namely that a party should only be fixed with knowing that which a prudent person should reasonably have known. Moreover, the General Court committed a manifest error of assessment of the facts, in deciding that the standard of constructive knowledge had been met.

      (1)  2010/45/EU: Commission Decision of 22 December 2009 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a third updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (notified under document C(2009) 10406)
   OJ L 30, p. 322

      (2)  2009/95/EC: Commission Decision of 12 December 2008 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a second updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (notified under document number C(2008) 8049)
   OJ L 43, p. 393


title: Case T-65/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — Talanton v Commission (Arbitration clause — Pocemon contract — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Eligible costs — Recovery of sums paid — Abuse of contractual rights — Principle of good faith — Legitimate expectations — Burden of proof — Counterclaim)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — Talanton v Commission
   (Case T-65/15) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Pocemon contract - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Eligible costs - Recovery of sums paid - Abuse of contractual rights - Principle of good faith - Legitimate expectations - Burden of proof - Counterclaim))
   (2017/C 283/47)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon (Palaio Faliro, Greece) (represented by: K. Damis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent, and L. Athanassiou and G. Gerapetritis, lawyers)

      Re:

   First, application based on Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that the expenditure that the applicant declared in the context of grant agreement No 216088 relating to the implementation of the ‘Point-of-care monitoring and diagnostics for autoimmune diseases’ project, concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), was eligible and that the request, by the Commission, for recovery of the sum of EUR 273 289,63, pursuant to that grant agreement, amounted to a breach of the Commission’s contractual obligations, as well as, second, a counterclaim seeking an order requiring the applicant to pay the sum of EUR 253 289,63, together with interest and reduced by any later payments.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon to reimburse to the European Commission the sum of EUR 253 289,63, paid pursuant to grant agreement No 216088 relating to the implementation of the ‘Point-of-care monitoring and diagnostics for autoimmune diseases’ project, together with late payment interest at the rate of 3,55 % from 27 January 2015, reduced by the sum of EUR 5 000 paid to the Commission on 4 May 2015, which is first set against late payment interest and then against the principal amount;

               3.

               Orders Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Case T-268/04: Action brought on 28 June 2004 by Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/37

         Action brought on 28 June 2004 by Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-268/04)
   (2004/C 217/66)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 June 2004 by Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa, Spa (Belgium), represented by Emmanuel Cornu, Eric De Gryse and Donatienne Moreau, lawyers.
   Cottee Dairy Products Pty Limited, was also a party to the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Cottee Dairy Products Pty Limited

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark 'SPA' for goods in Class 1 (Application No 911388)

               Mark or sign cited in opposition.

               The figurative and word marks 'SPA' registered in Benelux for goods in Class 32 and the company and trade names of the opponent.

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               S.A. Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejection of the application for registration

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division

               Pleas in law:

               Breach of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/941.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1)


title: Case T-449/14: Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/49

         Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission
   (Case T-449/14)
   2014/C 282/63
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Nexans France (Clichy, France); and Nexans SA (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Powell, Solicitor, G. Forwood, Barrister, and A. Rogers, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA in case AT.39610 — Power Cables (the ‘Decision’);

               —

               Annul part of the contested decision in so far as it found that Nexans France participated in an infringement before 22 February 2001;

               —

               Reduce the fines imposed on the Applicants by an amount that corresponds to a shorter duration and a reduced gravity factor; and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs in these 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, alleging that in removing certain data in the course of the unannounced inspection at the premises of Nexans France, the Commission acted beyond the powers conferred on it by Regulation 1/2003 and breached the applicants’ right to privacy.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in determining the duration of the infringement.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in that it failed to take account of the alleged infringement’s lack of implementation and lack of effects on customers, failed to give adequate reasons and breached the principle of equal treatment.


title: Case T-471/12: Order of the General Court of 10 July 2017 — Meta Group v Commission

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/55

         Order of the General Court of 10 July 2017 — Meta Group v Commission
   (Case T-471/12) (1)

   (2017/C 283/85)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.


title: Case C-151/14: Action brought on 31 March 2014  — European Commission v Republic of Latvia

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/19

         Action brought on 31 March 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Latvia
   (Case C-151/14)
   2014/C 159/26
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Rubene and H. Stølbæk)

      Defendant: Republic of Latvia

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               hold that it is not permissible to consider that the functions of a notary, as currently regulated by the Latvian legal system, constitute an exercise of official authority of the Member State, within the meaning of the exception set out in the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and accordingly, hold that, in setting out a requirement of nationality for appointment as a notary, the Republic of Latvia’s legislation discriminates on grounds of nationality prohibited by Article 49 of the Treaty.

               —

               hold that, in making an appointment as a notary subject to a requirement of nationality, the Republic of Latvia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 of the Treaty.

               —

               order the Republic of Latvia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission submits that the nationality requirement for access to the notarial profession is discriminatory and constitutes a disproportionate restriction on freedom of establishment. Consequently, the Republic of Latvia has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
   The Commission submits that, by their nature, functions assigned to a notary in the Republic of Latvia’s legislation are not related to the exercise of official authority and that, consequently, the requirement of nationality for access to the notarial profession cannot be justified by the exception set out in Article 51 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


title: Case C-220/13 P: Appeal brought on 25 April 2013 by Kalliopi Nikolaou against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 20 February 2013 in Case T-241/09 Nikolaou v Court of Auditors of the European Union

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/10

         Appeal brought on 25 April 2013 by Kalliopi Nikolaou against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 20 February 2013 in Case T-241/09 Nikolaou v Court of Auditors of the European Union
   (Case C-220/13 P)
   2013/C 189/19
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Kalliopi Nikolaou (represented by: V. Khristianos, dikigoros)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 in Case T-241/09 and refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The appellant submits that the judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 contains legal rulings which clearly infringe rules of European Union law and she challenges them by means of an appeal.

               2.

               According to the appellant, the judgment under appeal must be set aside because of infringement of fundamental rights and principles of European Union law, incorrect interpretation and application of European Union law, and the exceeding of jurisdiction (competence).
               Specifically, the grounds of appeal are as follows:

                           —

                           First, infringement of the presumption of innocence.

                           —

                           Second, infringement of the principle requiring cooperation in good faith with the Tribunal d’arrondissement, Luxembourg, pursuant to Article 4(3) TEU.

                           —

                           Third, exceeding of jurisdiction.

                           —

                           Fourth, incorrect interpretation and application of European Union law as regards the conditions for non-contractual liability and as regards Decision 99/50 of the Court of Auditors.


title: Case C-421/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel, Belgium) — City Motors Groep NV v Citroën Belux NV (Competition — Distribution agreement relating to motor vehicles — Block exemption — Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 — Article 3(4) and (6) — Termination by the supplier — Right to refer the dispute to an expert or arbitrator or to apply to a national court — Express termination clause — Compatibility with the block exemption — Validity of the grounds for the termination — Effective review)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel, Belgium) — City Motors Groep NV v Citroën Belux NV
   (Case C-421/05) (1)

   (Competition - Distribution agreement relating to motor vehicles - Block exemption - Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 - Article 3(4) and (6) - Termination by the supplier - Right to refer the dispute to an expert or arbitrator or to apply to a national court - Express termination clause - Compatibility with the block exemption - Validity of the grounds for the termination - Effective review)
   (2007/C 56/17)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: City Motors Groep NV

      Defendant: Citroën Belux NV
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van koophandel te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 3(6) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector (OJ 2002 L 203, p. 30) — Prohibition on inserting an express termination clause in a motor vehicle concession agreement intended to benefit from the exemption
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 3(6) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector is to be interpreted as meaning that the mere fact that an agreement falling within the scope of that regulation contains an express termination clause, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which such an agreement can be terminated by the supplier as of right and without notice in the event of a breach by the distributor of one of the contractual obligations referred to in that clause, does not have the effect of rendering the block exemption provided for in Article 2(1) of that regulation inapplicable to that agreement.

      (1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.


title: Case C-311/14 P: Appeal brought on 1 July 2014 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2014 in Case T-473/11 Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/9

      Appeal brought on 1 July 2014 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2014 in Case T-473/11 Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      (Case C-311/14 P)
      (2015/C 073/12)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Weleda Trademark AG
      By order of 20 January 2015 the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 April 2005 in Case C-267/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen Lars Erik Staffan Lindberg (Directive 83/189/EEC — Notification procedure in the field of technical standards and regulations — Obligation to notify draft technical regulations — National legislation on gaming and lotteries — Gaming machines — Prohibition on the organisation of games on gaming machines which do not pay out winnings directly — Machines of the ‘wheel of fortune’ type — Definition of ’technical regulation’)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 21 April 2005
   in Case C-267/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen Lars Erik Staffan Lindberg (1)

   (Directive 83/189/EEC - Notification procedure in the field of technical standards and regulations - Obligation to notify draft technical regulations - National legislation on gaming and lotteries - Gaming machines - Prohibition on the organisation of games on gaming machines which do not pay out winnings directly - Machines of the ‘wheel of fortune’ type - Definition of 'technical regulation')
   (2005/C 143/10)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   In Case C-267/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden), made by decision of 10 April 2003, received at the Court on 18 June 2003, in the criminal proceedings against Lars Erik Staffan Lindberg — the Court: (Second Chamber) composed of C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General, H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               National provisions such as the Law on Lotteries (lotterilagen (1994:1000)), in the version resulting from the law amending the Law on Lotteries (lag om ändring i lotterilagen (1996:1168)), which entail a prohibition on the organisation of games of chance using certain gaming machines are liable to constitute a technical regulation within the meaning of Article 1(9) of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended by Directive 94/10/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 March 1994, where it is established that the scope of the prohibition at issue leaves no room for any use which can reasonably be expected of the product concerned other than a purely marginal one or, if that is not the case, where it is established that that prohibition may significantly influence the composition or nature of the product or its marketing.

               2.

               Redefining in national legislation a service connected with the design of a product, in particular that of operating certain gaming machines, as the law (1996:1168) amending the Law on Lotteries did, can constitute a technical regulation which must be notified under Directive 83/189, as amended by Directive 94/10, if that new legislation does not merely reproduce or replace, without adding new or additional specifications, existing technical regulations which, if adopted after the entry into force of Directive 83/189 in the Member State concerned, have been duly notified to the Commission of the European Communities.

               3.

               The replacement of a licence requirement by a prohibition in national law may be a significant factor with regard to the obligation to notify provided for by Directive 83/189, as amended by Directive 94/10.
               The greater or lesser value of the product or service or the size of the market for the product or service are factors which are not relevant as regards the obligation to notify provided for by that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 06.09.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 May 2005 in Case C-498/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London in Kingscrest Associates Ltd, Montecello Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13A(1)(g) and (h) — Exempt transactions — Supplies closely linked to welfare and social security work — Supplies closely linked to the protection of children and young persons — Supplies made by bodies other than those governed by public law and recognised as charitable by the Member State concerned — Private, profit-making entity — Meaning of ‘charitable’)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 26 May 2005
   in Case C-498/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London in Kingscrest Associates Ltd, Montecello Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13A(1)(g) and (h) - Exempt transactions - Supplies closely linked to welfare and social security work - Supplies closely linked to the protection of children and young persons - Supplies made by bodies other than those governed by public law and recognised as charitable by the Member State concerned - Private, profit-making entity - Meaning of ‘charitable’)
   (2005/C 182/23)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-498/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London (United Kingdom), made by decision of 10 June 2003, received at the Court on 26 November 2003, in the proceedings between Kingscrest Associates Ltd, Montecello Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, A. La Pergola, J. Malenovský and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The word ‘charitable’ in the English version of Article 13A(1)(g) and (h) 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 a concept with its own independent meaning in Community law which must be interpreted taking account of all the language versions of that directive.

               2.

               The meaning of ‘organisations recognised as charitable by the Member State concerned’ in Article 13A(1)(g) and (h) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 does not exclude private profit-making entities.

               3.

               It is for the national court to determine, having regard, in particular, to the principles of equal treatment and fiscal neutrality, and taking account of the content of the supplies of services in question, as well as the conditions for making them, whether the recognition of a private profit-making entity, which as such does not have charitable status under domestic law, as charitable for the purposes of the exemptions under Article 13A(1)(g) and (h) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 exceeds the discretion granted by those provisions to the Member States for the purposes of such recognition.

      (1)  OJ C 21 of 24.01.2004.


title: Case T-164/12 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 29 November 2012 — Alstom v Commission (Interim relief — Competition — Commission decision to transmit documents to a national court — Confidentiality — Right to effective judicial protection — Application for interim measures — Prima facie case — Urgency — Weighing up of interests)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/49

         Order of the President of the General Court of 29 November 2012 — Alstom v Commission
   (Case T-164/12 R)
   (Interim relief - Competition - Commission decision to transmit documents to a national court - Confidentiality - Right to effective judicial protection - Application for interim measures - Prima facie case - Urgency - Weighing up of interests)
   2013/C 26/99
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alstom (Levallois-Perret, France) (represented by: J. Derenne, lawyer, N. Heaton, P. Chaplin and M. Farley, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Antoniadis, N. Khan and P. Van Nuffel, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: National Grid Electricity Transmission plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Magnus, C. Bryant and E. Coulson, Solicitors, J. Turner QC and D. Beard QC)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of the Commission’s decision of 26 January 2012 contained in letters No D/2012/006840 and No D/2012/006863 from the Director General of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition, concerning the transmission of certain documents to the High Court of England and Wales for use in evidence in proceedings brought against the applicant, and an application for confidential treatment to be ordered in the present proceedings in respect of the professional secrets contained in the applicant’s reply of 30 June 2006 to the statement of objections in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Operation of the Commission’s decision of 26 January 2012 is suspended in so far as that decision concerns the transmission to the High Court of England and Wales of the confidential version of Alstom’s reply of 30 June 2006 to the statement of objections in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear.

               2.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed as to the remainder.

               3.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-488/07: Judgment of the General Court of 15 April 2010 — Cabel Hall Citrus v OHIM — Casur (EGLÉFRUIT) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark EGLÉFRUIT — Earlier Community word mark UGLI and earlier national figurative mark ‘UGLI Fruit — but the affliction is only skin deep’ — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 April 2010 — Cabel Hall Citrus v OHIM — Casur (EGLÉFRUIT)
   (Case T-488/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark EGLÉFRUIT - Earlier Community word mark UGLI and earlier national figurative mark ‘UGLI Fruit - but the affliction is only skin deep’ - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 148/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cabel Hall Citrus Ltd (George Town, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands) (represented by: C. Rogers, barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Casur S. Coop. Andaluza (Viator, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 September 2007 (Case R 293/2007-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Cabel Hall Citrus Ltd and Casur S.C. Andaluza.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Cabel Hall Citrus Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case T-577/10: Action brought on 14 December 2010 — Trenzas y Cables de Acero v Commission

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/29

         Action brought on 14 December 2010 — Trenzas y Cables de Acero v Commission
   (Case T-577/10)
   2011/C 55/52
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, SL (Santander, Spain) (represented by F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the decision of the European Commission of 30 September 2010 amending the decision of 30 June 2010 (C(2010) 4837 final in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel);

               —

               in the alternative, annul, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 2 of the decision of the European Commission of 30 September 2010 amending the decision of 30 June 2010 (C(2010) 4837 final in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel) insofar as it entails an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination in not having extended to TYCSA PSC the additional period for payment of the fine, and fails to state reasons; and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those already raised in Case T-575/10 Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission.


title: Case C-526/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 27 December 2006 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Road Air Logistics Customs B.V.

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 27 December 2006 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Road Air Logistics Customs B.V.
   (Case C-526/06)
   (2007/C 42/30)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Respondent: Road Air Logistics Customs B.V.
   Question referred
   Must the term ‘not legally owed’ in Article 236 of the Community Customs Code (1) be construed as covering also the case in which the place where the customs debt was incurred was not determined in accordance with the relevant provisions of Regulation No 2454/93 implementing the Community Customs Code? (2)

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).


title: Case T-281/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2006 — Staboli v Commission (Staff case — Pursuit of an outside activity — Participation in conferences as a speaker — Agreement — Application for the grant of special leave for training purposes — Refusal)

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/13

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2006 — Staboli v Commission
   (Case T-281/04) (1)

   (Staff case - Pursuit of an outside activity - Participation in conferences as a speaker - Agreement - Application for the grant of special leave for training purposes - Refusal)
   (2006/C 310/24)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Paola Staboli (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decisions of 12 March and 6 April 2004 rejecting her complaint brought against the decision of 9 May 2003, in so far as the institution refused to grant her special leave for training purposes to enable her to pursue an outside activity, which was moreover authorised by that decision, and, so far as necessary, annulment of the abovementioned decision of 9 May 2003.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case C-372/01: Action brought on 26 September 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
10.11.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 317/21
Action brought on 24 September 2001 by the Com-                           The Commission of the European Communities claims that
   mission of the European Communities against Ireland                    the Court should:
                           (Case C-365/01)                                —     Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Council Directive 98/8/EC (1) of the European Parliament
                           (2001/C 317/38)                                      and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the
                                                                                placing of biocidal products on the market, or at least by
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                       failing to communicate them to the Commission, the
Justice of the European Communities on 24 September 2001                        Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented                      obligations under that directive.
by Marie Wolfcarius, acting as agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.                                                    —     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations
      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Commission Directive 1999/47/EC(1) of 21 May 1999                   The mandatory nature of the third paragraph of Article 249
      adapting for the second time to technical progress                  EC and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC requires that the
      Council Directive 94/55/EC on the approximation of the              Member States adopt the measures necessary to implement
      laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of           directives addressed to them by the deadline allowed them for
      dangerous goods by road, or in any event by failing to              that purpose. The deadline in question expired on 14 May
      inform the Commission of those measures, Ireland has                1998 without the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg having
      failed to fulfil its obligations under this Directive               adopted the necessary measures.
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 123 of 24.4.1998, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the             Action brought on 27 September 2001 by the Com-
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period             mission of the European Communities against the United
expired on 1 July 1999 without Ireland having enacted the                                             Kingdom
provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred to
in the conclusions of the Commission.
                                                                                (Case C-374/01)
(1) OJ L 169, 5.7.1999, p. 1.                                                                     (2001/C 317/40)
                                                                          An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 Septem-
                                                                          ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 26 September 2001 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Grand
                       Duchy of Luxembourg                                The Applicant requests that the Court should:
                           (Case C-372/01)                                —     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary before 14 May 2000
                                                                                to comply with European Parliament and Council Direc-
                           (2001/C 317/39)                                      tive 98/8/EC of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing
                                                                                of biocidal products on the market (1), or in any event by
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                             failing to communicate them to the Commission, the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                    United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under
ties on 26 September 2001 by the Commission of the                              that Directive;
European Communities represented by M. Nolin, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                         —     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  22 November 2005  in Case C-144/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht München Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm (Directive 1999/70/EC — Clauses 2, 5 and 8 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 6 — Equal treatment as regards employment and occupation — Age discrimination)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 22 November 2005
   in Case C-144/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht München Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm (1)

   (Directive 1999/70/EC - Clauses 2, 5 and 8 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 6 - Equal treatment as regards employment and occupation - Age discrimination)
   (2006/C 36/18)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-144/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Arbeitsgericht München (Germany), made by decision of 26 February 2004, received at the Court on 17 March 2004, in the proceedings pending before that court between Werner Mangold and Rüdiger Helm — the Court: (Grand Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the First Chamber, acting as President, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and K. Schiemann, Presidents of Chambers, and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász, G. Arestis, A. Borg Barthet and M. Ilešič, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General, K. Sztranc, Administrator, has given a judgment on 22 November 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               On a proper construction of Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term contracts concluded on 18 March 1999, put into effect by Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, domestic legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which for reasons connected with the need to encourage employment and irrespective of the implementation of that agreement, has lowered the age above which fixed-term contracts of employment may be concluded without restrictions, is not contrary to that provision.

               2.

               Community law and, more particularly, Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding a provision of domestic law such as that at issue in the main proceedings which authorises, without restriction, unless there is a close connection with an earlier contract of employment of indefinite duration concluded with the same employer, the conclusion of fixed-term contracts of employment once the worker has reached the age of 52.
               It is the responsibility of the national court to guarantee the full effectiveness of the general principle of non-discrimination in respect of age, setting aside any provision of national law which may conflict with Community law, even where the period prescribed for transposition of that directive has not yet expired.

      (1)  JO C 146 of 29.5.2004.


20150731032616902015/C 270/264042010TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150630222211Case T-404/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2015 — National Lottery Commission v OHIM — Mediatek Italia and De Gregorio (Community figurative mark representing a hand) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark representing a hand — Article 53(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Existence of earlier copyright protected by national law — Burden of proof — Application by OHIM of national law)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN2210120150630EN0026221221Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2015 — National Lottery Commission v OHIM — Mediatek Italia and De Gregorio (Community figurative mark representing a hand)
   (Case T-404/10 RENV) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark representing a hand — Article 53(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Existence of earlier copyright protected by national law — Burden of proof — Application by OHIM of national law)’2015/C 270/26Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Gambling Commission, formerly National Lottery Commission (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Cardas, lawyer, and B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Mediatek Italia Srl (Naples, Italy), Giuseppe De Gregorio (Naples)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 June 2010 (Case R 1028/2009-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Mediatek Italia Srl and Giuseppe De Gregorio and, on the other, the National Lottery Commission.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1)

            Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 June 2010 (Case R 1028/2009-1);

            2)

            Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case T-389/04: Action brought on 23 September 2004 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/47

         Action brought on 23 September 2004 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-389/04)
   (2004/C 300/92)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 September 2004 by the Federal Republic of Germany, represented by C.-D. Quassowski, acting as Agent, and G. Quardt, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2004)2641 of 14 July 2004 on restructuring aid for MobilCom, insofar as the Commission thereby requires Germany to ensure that MobilCom and all companies in its group close their Online-Shops for the direct online sale of MobilCom mobile telephone contracts for the period of seven months, that for that period of closure of the Online-Shops the direct online sale of MobilCom mobile telephone contracts via the MobilCom Shops website is also discontinued, that MobilCom and companies in its group take no other steps to circumvent those conditions and that clients are not transferred directly via an automatic link on the relevant website to a sales partner;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In support of its action, the applicant submits that Article 88(2) EC does not permit the Commission to impose on the Member State in question measures for the reduction or removal of effects of State aid which distorts competition other than measures to recover that aid. Nor are the measures provided for in Article 2 of the contested decision valid as a modification of the aid, or as conditions or requirements which could be covered by Article 7(4) of Regulation 659/1999. As a result, the Commission has therefore exceeded its margin of discretion and infringed Article 10 EC, which imposes a duty of loyal cooperation between the Member States and the EC institutions, particularly since Germany has expressly stated that it is not in a position to guarantee compliance with the conditions.
   The applicant further submits that the Commission has committed grave errors of assessment in its examination of the compatibility of the aid with the common market.


title: Joined Cases C-328/10 to C-333/10: Order of the President of the Court of 14 February 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy)) — Enipower SpA (C-328/10), ENI SpA (C-329/10), Edison Trading SpA (C-330/10), E.On Produzione SpA (C-331/10), Edipower SpA (C-332/10), E.On Energy Trading SpA (C-333/10) v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gás (C-328/10 to C-333/10), Cassa Conguaglio per il Settore Elettrico (C-329/10) intervening parties: Terna Rete Elettrica Nazionale SpA (C-328/10, C-329/10, C-331/10 and C-332/10), Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico (C-328/10 and C-329/10), Gestore dei Servizi Elettrici SpA (C-331/10)

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/10

         Order of the President of the Court of 14 February 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy)) — Enipower SpA (C-328/10), ENI SpA (C-329/10), Edison Trading SpA (C-330/10), E.On Produzione SpA (C-331/10), Edipower SpA (C-332/10), E.On Energy Trading SpA (C-333/10) v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gás (C-328/10 to C-333/10), Cassa Conguaglio per il Settore Elettrico (C-329/10) intervening parties: Terna Rete Elettrica Nazionale SpA (C-328/10, C-329/10, C-331/10 and C-332/10), Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico (C-328/10 and C-329/10), Gestore dei Servizi Elettrici SpA (C-331/10)
   (Joined Cases C-328/10 to C-333/10) (1)

   2012/C 126/20
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the cases be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case T-356/04: Action brought on 27 August 2004 by SmithKline Beecham p.l.c. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/36

         Action brought on 27 August 2004 by SmithKline Beecham p.l.c. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-356/04)
   (2004/C 273/69)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 August 2004 by SmithKline Beecham, Brentford, (United Kingdom) represented by Dr V. von Bomhard, Dr A. Renck, Dr A. Pohlmann and I. Fowler, lawyers.
   Warner-Lambert Consumer Healthcare S.Com.p.a. Milan, (Italy) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 June 2004 in Case R0018/2004-1

               —

               order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               SmithKline Beecham p.l.c.

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Word mark ACTIFAST for goods and services in class 5 (pharmaceutical applications) — application number OHMI 1 902 568

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Warner-Lambert Consumer Healthcare S. Com.p.a.

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               National word mark ACTIFED for goods and services in class 5

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition rejected

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal allowed, opposition allowed, registration denied

               Pleas in law:

               Violation of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 40/94


title: Case C-354/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Protection of the environment — Access to justice)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-354/06) (1)

   (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Protection of the environment - Access to justice)
   (2007/C 297/22)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Hottiaux and F. Simonetti, agents, acting as Agent(s))

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, agent.)
   Re:
   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to take in the prescribed period all the legislative regulatory and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 249 of 14.10.2006.


title: Case T-315/09: Action brought on 10 August 2009 — Hoelzer v OHIM (SAFELOAD)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/66

         Action brought on 10 August 2009 — Hoelzer v OHIM (SAFELOAD)
   (Case T-315/09)
   2009/C 267/119
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Oliver Hoelzer (Remscheid, Germany) (represented by G. Rother and J. Vogtmeier, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 June 2009 (R 1157/2008-4);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in connection with the appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘SAFELOAD’ for goods in Classes 6 and 12 (application No 6330831)

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since the word element of the mark applied for does not describe the characteristics of the goods covered by the application.

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


title: Case C-180/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2017 — Toshiba Corporation v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in gas insulated switchgear projects — Decision taken by the European Commission following annulment in part of the initial decision by the General Court of the European Union — Amendment of fines — Rights of the defence — No adoption of a new statement of objections — Equal treatment — Joint venture — Calculation of the starting amount — Extent of contribution to the infringement — Res judicata)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/6

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2017 — Toshiba Corporation v European Commission
   (Case C-180/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in gas insulated switchgear projects - Decision taken by the European Commission following annulment in part of the initial decision by the General Court of the European Union - Amendment of fines - Rights of the defence - No adoption of a new statement of objections - Equal treatment - Joint venture - Calculation of the starting amount - Extent of contribution to the infringement - Res judicata))
   (2017/C 283/08)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Toshiba Corporation (represented by: J. F. MacLennan, Solicitor, S. Sakellariou, dikigoros, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, and J. Jourdan, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Toshiba Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 February 2005 in Case T-19/01 Chiquita Brands International, Inc., and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Action for compensation — Regulation No 2362/98 — Agreement establishing the WTO and annexed agreements — Recommendations and rulings of the dispute settlement body of the WTO)

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/24

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 3 February 2005
   in Case T-19/01 Chiquita Brands International, Inc., and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Action for compensation - Regulation No 2362/98 - Agreement establishing the WTO and annexed agreements - Recommendations and rulings of the dispute settlement body of the WTO)
   (2005/C 93/47)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-19/01: Chiquita Brands International, Inc., established in Trenton, New Jersey (United States), Chiquita Banana Co. BV, established in Breda (Netherlands), and Chiquita Italia, SpA, established in Rome (Italy), represented by C. Pouncey, solicitor, and L. Van Den Hende, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European Communities, (Agents: initially C. Van der Hauwaert and C. Brown, then L. Visaggio, C. Brown and M. Niejahr, and finally L. Visaggio and C. Brown, assisted by N. Khan, barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg), — action for compensation in respect of loss allegedly suffered by reason of the adoption and maintaining in force of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998, laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32), — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas, J.D. Cooke, P. Mengozzi and M.E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 3 February 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.


title: Case C-584/11 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 2013 — Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences SAS, Dow AgroSciences Export SAS, Dow Agrosciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S, Dow AgroSciences GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Plant protection products — Active substance trifluralin — Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Decision 1999/468/EC — Article 5)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/42

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 2013 — Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences SAS, Dow AgroSciences Export SAS, Dow Agrosciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S, Dow AgroSciences GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-584/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Plant protection products - Active substance trifluralin - Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Decision 1999/468/EC - Article 5)
   2013/C 225/72
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences SAS, Dow AgroSciences Export SAS, Dow Agrosciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S, Dow AgroSciences GmbH (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck, advocaat)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 September 2011 in Case T-475/07 Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission dismissing an action for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/629/EC of 20 September 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of trifluralin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant-protection products containing that substance (notified under document number C(2007) 4282) (OJ 2007 L 255, p. 42)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences SAS, Dow AgroSciences Export SAS, Dow Agrosciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S and Dow AgroSciences GmbH shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case F-85/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 February 2008 — Anselmo v Council (Staff case — Officials — Recruitment — Appointment — Grading — Successful candidates in an internal competition — New evidence — Lack — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/48

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 February 2008 — Anselmo v Council
   (Case F-85/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Recruitment - Appointment - Grading - Successful candidates in an internal competition - New evidence - Lack - Manifestly inadmissible)
   (2008/C 92/96)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Anselmo (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: S.A. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Re:
   Annulment of the decisions of the appointing authority rejecting the complaints introduced by the applicants, successful candidates in internal competition B/277, because of discrimination which they maintain that they suffered in comparison with officials who benefited from the attestation procedure.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party is ordered to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007, p. 71.


title: Case T-131/09: Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Farmeco v OHIM — Allergan (BOTUMAX)

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/18

         Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Farmeco v OHIM — Allergan (BOTUMAX)
   (Case T-131/09)
   2009/C 129/32
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Farmeco SA Dermocosmetics, trading as “Farmeco SA” (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Lyberis, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Allergan, Inc. (Irvine, United States)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 February 2009 in case R 60/2008-4, to the extent that the application for the Community trade mark concerned was rejected for all goods in classes 3 and 5 and certain goods in class 16;

               —

               Dismiss the appeal filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal against the decision of 26 October 2007 of the Opposition Division and allow the Community trade mark concerned to proceed to registration for all goods applied for; and

               —

               Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including those incurred in opposition and appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “BOTUMAX”, for goods in classes 3, 5 and 16 — application No 3 218 237

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: Various Community and national trade mark registrations of the word mark or the sign “BOTOX” for goods and services in classes 5, 16, and 42, respectively

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected partially the application for the Community trade mark concerned

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned in respect of identical or highly similar goods, in spite of the existing differences between the visual and phonetic perception of the two signs; Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly considered that the conditions for the application of the said article were met.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 25 April 2002 in Case C-96/01 P: The Galileo Company, Galileo International LLC v Council of the European Union (Air transport — Code of conduct for the use of computerised reservation systems (CRS) — Purchase of data by groups of airlines — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility — Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

text:
15.6.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 144/13
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                                       ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                        (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 December 2001
                           25 April 2002                                 in Case C-309/01 P: Council of the European Union v
                                                                                Hans McAuley (1)
in Case C-96/01 P: The Galileo Company, Galileo Inter-                   (Appeals — Officials — Appointment by promotion —
     national LLC v Council of the European Union (1)                    Consideration of the comparative merits — Manifest error of
                                                                         assessment — Annulment — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
(Air transport — Code of conduct for the use of computerised                                       (2002/C 144/19)
reservation systems (CRS) — Purchase of data by groups of
airlines — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility —
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly
                             unfounded)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                          (2002/C 144/18)
                                                                         In Case 309/01 P: Council of the European Union (Agents:
                   (Language of the case: English)                       F. Anton and A. Pilette), — appeal against the judgment of the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities, Fourth
                                                                         Chamber, of 14 June 2002 in Case T-230/99 McAuley v
                                                                         Council [2001] ECR-SC II-583, seeking to have that judgment
                                                                         set aside and the rejection of the application submitted at first
                                                                         instance annulled, the other party to the proceedings being
In Case C-96/01 P, The Galileo Company, established in                   Hans McAuley, represented by J.-N. Louis et V. Peere, avocats
Swindon (United Kingdom), Galileo International LLC, estab-              — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of F. Macken,
lished in Rosemont (United States), (represented by R. Plender,          President of Chamber, C. Gulmann and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues
QC, instructed by K. Holmes and by D. Austin and R. Butler,              (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-
solicitors: Appeal against the order of the Court of First               eral; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 13 December 2001,
Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) of                 the operative part of which is as follows:
15 December 2000 in Case T-113/99 Galileo and Galileo
International v Council [2000] ECR II-4141, seeking to have              1.    The appeal is dismissed.
that order set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being:
Council of the European Union (Agents: A. Lopes Sabino                   2.    The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.
and M. Bishop), Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: F. Benyon and M. Huttunen) and Amadeus Global
Travel Distribution SA, established in Madrid (Kingdom of                (1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
Spain), the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von
Bahr, President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and
C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 25 April
2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
1.    The appeal is dismissed.                                           Gerichtshof (Republic of Austria) by order of that Court
                                                                         of 29 January 2002 in the case of Herbert Karner
                                                                           Industrieauktionen GmbH against Troostwijk GesmbH
2.    The Galileo Company and Galileo International LLC are
      ordered to pay the costs.                                                                     (Case C-71/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/20)
(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof


title: Case T-176/03: Action brought on 19 May 2003 by Trudell Medical International against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 184/42              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          2.8.2003
Action brought on 19 May 2003 by Trudell Medical Inter-                   Decision of the Board of        Appeal granted, decision of the
national against the Office for Harmonisation in the                      Appeal:                         Opposition Division annulled,
     Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                     registration refused.
                         (Case T-176/03)
                         (2003/C 184/93)                                  Pleas in law:                   — misapplication of Article 8
                                                                                (1)(b), of Regulation 40/
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of                                          94 (1). The applicant alleges
the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was                                                that there was no risk of
                         submitted: English)                                                                  confusion between the two
                                                                                marks concerned.
                                                                                — misapplication of Articles 74
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                (1) and 73 and of Regula-
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                                    tion 40/94. The applicant
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                                    alleges that the Board of
19 May 2003 by Trudell Medical International, London,                                                         Appeal examined alleged
Ontario (Canada), represented by Helmut Eichmann, Gerhard                                                     facts and arguments which
Barth, Ulrich Blumenroder, Christa Niklas-Falter, Maximilian                                                  were provided by neither
Kinkeldey, Karsten Brandt, Anja Franke, Ute Stephani, Bernd                                                   party and further based its
Allekotte, Elvira Pfrang, Karin Lochner, Babett Ertle, lawyers.                                               decision on reasons on
                                                                                which the parties concerned
                                                                                have had no opportunity to
Fisons Limited was also a party to the proceedings before the                                                 present their comments.
Board of Appeal.
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
—     Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade-
      marks and Designs) in the case R 643/2002-1 of March
      17, 2003;
—     order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the
      defendant
                                                                          Action brought on 21 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG &
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Co. OHG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Applicant for Community          Trudell Medical International
trade mark:
                                                                                (Case T-178/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/94)
Community       trade   mark     Word mark ‘AEROECLIPSE’ for
sought:                          certain goods in Class 10 (ap-
                                 plication No 001098649 )                                   (Language of the case: German)
Proprietor of mark or sign       Fisons Limited                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
cited in the opposition pro-                                              Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
ceedings:                                                                 Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                          21 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG & Co. OHG, Oldenburg
                                                                          (Germany), represented by Chr. Spintig, lawyer.
Mark or sign cited in op-        National mark ‘ECLIPSE’ in re-
position:                        spect of certain goods in                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                 Classes 5 and 10.
                                                                          —    annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
                                                                               defendant of 12 March 2003 in Case R 641/2002-3;
Decision of the Opposition       Opposition rejected.
Division:                                                                 —    order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 8 February 1996 in the case of Carlos Mora Romero v. Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz (Case C-131/96)

text:
No C 180/22             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22 . 6 . 96
Is the stamp tax having the characteristics mentioned above                Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale ( INPS ) on the
to be regarded as a turnover tax in the terms of Article 33 of             interprétation of Artide 46 ( 2 ) ( a ) of Régulation ( EEC ) No
the said Sixth Directive ( ! ), subject to a possible derogation           1408/71 (') in order to ascertain :
under Article 378 of the Act annexed to the Treaty of
Accession ( 2 ) or any other Community legal provision ?                  whether, in order to determine the amount of an Italian pro
                                                                          rata pension , the INPS ( national social security institution )
C ) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the              must base its calculations on the ' notional ' or theoretical
      harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to          pension alone or on the ' notional ' or theoretical pension
      turnover taxes — Common system of value-added tax : uniform          supplemented to meet the statutory minimun .
      basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 ).
( 2 ) Documents concerning the accession of the Portuguese                 (') OJ, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 .
      Republic to the European Communities , OJ No L 302 , 15 . 11 .
      1985 .
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello,
                                                                          Ancona, by order of that court of 11 April 1996 in the case
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                      of Finanze dello Stato against Foods Import SRL
Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 8 February                                            ( Case C-133 /96 )
 1996      in   the   case     of    Carlos   Mora      Romero    v.
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/48 )
             Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz
                          ( Case C-131 /96 )                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                            ( 96/C 180/46 )                               European Communities by order of the Corte di Appello
                                                                           ( Court of Appeal ) Ancona , of 11 April 19 96 , which was
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    received at the Court Registry on 24 April 1996 , for a
European Communities by an order of the                                   preliminary ruling in the Case of Finanze dello Stato against
Bundessozialgericht ( Federal Social Court ) of 8 February                Foods Import SRL on the following questions :
 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 24 April
 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Carlos Maria               1 . Is the list given in Council Regulation ( EEC ) No
Romero v . Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz on the                       3796/81 of 29 December 1981 ( 1 ) ( and repeated in
following question :                                                            Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3333/83 of 4 November
                                                                                1983 ( 2 )), Annex VI to which reproduces Chapter 3 of
                                                                                the Common Customs Tariff in which cod appears
Are Articles 6 , 48 and 51 of the Treaty establishing the                       under heading 03.02 A. I and fillets of cod under
European Community and Article 7 of Council Regulation                          heading 03.02 . A. II, supplemented by the mention
( EEC ) No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers                           Gadus morrhua, Boreogadus saida, Gadus ogac,
within the Community ( 1 ) to be interpreted as permitting the                  exhaustive or illustrative and, accordingly, is the dried
legislature of a Member State to extend the period for                          cod scientifically classified as Molva molva covered by
drawing orphan's benefit beyond the age of 25 years only in                     that list ?
respect of those persons whose education and training has
been prolonged beyond the age of 25 years through
fulfilment of the duty of military service in accordance with             2 . Does Article 20 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No
the laws of the State ?                                                         3796/81 , suspending certain Common Customs Tariff
                                                                                duties , apply only to the three sub-species of cod referred
                                                                                to in Question 1 ( Gadus morrhua, Boreogadus saida,
C ) OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p . 475 .                         Gadus ogac) to the exclusion of other sub-species such
                                                                                as Molva ?
                                                                          3 . In any event, since the Court of Justice established by its
                                                                                judgment of 22 October 1987 in Case 314/85 that,
                                                                                where the three requirements specified in Article 5 ( 2 ) of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura, Rome, by                     Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1697/79 ( 3 ) are satisfied ,
order of that court of 4 April 1996 in the case of Antonio                      debtors are entitled to non-recovery of duties not
Stinco against Istituto Nazionale délia Previdenza Sociale                      collected, in what circumstances is that provision to be
                                 ( INPS )                                       applied, that is to say, what conduct on the part of the
                         ( Case C-132/96 )                                      creditor and the debtor is to be regarded as decisive with
                                                                                respect to the right to non-recovery of duties not
                            ( 96/C 180/47 )                                     collected ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    (') OJ No L 379 , 31 . 12 . 1981 , p . 1 .
European Communities by order of the Pretura                              ( 2 ) OJ No L 313 , 14 . 11 . 1983 , p . 1 .
( Magistrate's Court ) Rome, of 4 April 1 996 , which was                 (■') OJ No L 197, 3 . 8 . 1979 , p . 1 .
received at the Court Registry on 24 April 1996 , for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Antonio Stinco against


title: Judgment of the Court of 23 September 2015 in Case E-23/14 — Kimek Offshore AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment — State aid — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Admissibility — Legal interest — Status as interested party — Doubts or serious difficulties — General measures — Aid scheme)

text:
               17.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 422/6

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 23 September 2015
   in Case E-23/14
   Kimek Offshore AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Action for annulment — State aid — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Admissibility — Legal interest — Status as interested party — Doubts or serious difficulties — General measures — Aid scheme)
   (2016/C 422/05)
   In Case E-23/14, Kimek Offshore AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 225/14/COL of 18 June 2014 on the compatibility of Norway’s regionally differentiated social security contributions scheme with the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur) Judges, gave judgment on 23 September 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Annuls ESA Decision No 225/14/COL of 18 June 2014 on the compatibility of Norway’s regionally differentiated social security contributions scheme with the Agreement on the European Economic Area, in so far as it closed the preliminary investigation as regards section 1(4) of the Norwegian Parliament’s Decision No 1482 of 5 December 2013 on determination of the tax rates etc. under the National Insurance Act for 2014.

               2.

               Orders ESA to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the applicant.


title: Case C-336/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Ministeriet for Forskning, Innovation og Videregående Uddannelser v Manova A/S (Request for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Principle of equal treatment — Restricted procedure — Contract notice — Requirement for a copy of the most recent published balance sheet to be enclosed with the application — Copies of balance sheets not enclosed with some candidates’ applications — Right of the contracting authority to ask those candidates to provide copies of those balance sheets after the deadline for filing applications)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/34

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Ministeriet for Forskning, Innovation og Videregående Uddannelser v Manova A/S
   (Case C-336/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Principle of equal treatment - Restricted procedure - Contract notice - Requirement for a copy of the most recent published balance sheet to be enclosed with the application - Copies of balance sheets not enclosed with some candidates’ applications - Right of the contracting authority to ask those candidates to provide copies of those balance sheets after the deadline for filing applications)
   2013/C 344/59
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministeriet for Forskning, Innovation og Videregående Uddannelser

      Defendant: Manova A/S

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Østre Landsret — Interpretation of Annex IIB to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Principle of equal treatment — Contracting authority which has made success at the screening stage conditional upon candidates filing copies of their most recent balance sheets — Request from that contracting authority for candidates which have not enclosed copies of their most recent balance sheets with their screening applications to provide copies of the balance sheets even though the deadline for filing the applications has passed

      Operative part of the judgment

   The principle of equal treatment must be interpreted as not precluding a contracting authority from asking a candidate, after the deadline for applying to take part in a tendering procedure, to provide documents describing that candidate’s situation — such as a copy of its published balance sheet — which can be objectively shown to pre-date that deadline, so long as it was not expressly laid down in the contract documents that, unless such documents were provided, the application would be rejected. That request must not unduly favour or disadvantage the candidate or candidates to which it is addressed.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.