title: Case C-66/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2013 — Council of the European Union v European Commission (Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union — Staff Regulations — Action for annulment — Communication COM(2011) 829 final — Proposal COM(2011) 820 final — Action for failure to act — Submission of proposals on the basis of Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations — Failure of the Commission — Application devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2013 — Council of the European Union v European Commission
   (Case C-66/12) (1)

   (Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union - Staff Regulations - Action for annulment - Communication COM(2011) 829 final - Proposal COM(2011) 820 final - Action for failure to act - Submission of proposals on the basis of Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations - Failure of the Commission - Application devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
   2014/C 39/06
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, D. Hadroušek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: V. Pasternak Jørgensen and C. Thorning, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and N. Graf Vitzthum, acting as Agents), Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, acting as Agent, and by C. Toland BL and A. Joyce, Solicitor), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad and S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. S. Pilczer, acting as Agents), Republic of Latvia (represented by: I. Kalniņš and A. Nikolajeva, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson and J. Beeko, acting as Agents, and R. Palmer, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, D. Martin and J.P. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Neergaard and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment — Communication from the Commission (COM(2011) 829 final of 24 November 2011 on the refusal to submit proposals on the basis of the ‘exception clause’ contained in Article 10 to Annex XI of the Staff Regulations — Commission proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting, as from 1st July 2011, the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applying thereto — Action for failure to act — Unlawful failure by the Commission to submit proposals on the basis of Article 10 to Annex XI of the Staff Regulations.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action;

               2.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: Case C-143/09: Order of the Court of 17 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíroság (Republic of Hungary)) — Pannon GSM Távközlési Rt. v Nemzeti Hírközlési Hatóság Tanácsa (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Accession to the European Union — Directive 2002/22/EC — Application ratione temporis — Jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/16

         Order of the Court of 17 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíroság (Republic of Hungary)) — Pannon GSM Távközlési Rt. v Nemzeti Hírközlési Hatóság Tanácsa
   (Case C-143/09) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Accession to the European Union - Directive 2002/22/EC - Application ratione temporis - Jurisdiction of the Court)
   2010/C 51/25
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Bíroság (Republic of Hungary)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant(s): Pannon GSM Távközlési Rt.

      Defendant(s): Nemzeti Hírközlési Hatóság Tanácsa

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Bíroság — Interpretation of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33), of Articles 10, 87(1) and 249 EC and of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘Universal Service Directive’) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) — Sharing of the net cost of the universal service obligation between providers of networks and electronic communications services — National legislation on the mechanisms for cost sharing providing for the application of rules incompatible with the directive as regards the financing of universal services provided during the year preceding the accession of the Member State in question to the European Union

      Operative part

   Article 13(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘Universal Service Directive’) and Annex IV to that directive do not apply to the facts of a dispute such as that in the main proceedings, which concerns a contribution in the field of electronic communications charged by the authorities of the Republic of Hungary for 2003.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 04.07.2009


title: Case T-37/05: Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 March 2011 — World Wide Tobacco España v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Fines — Deterrent effect — Equal treatment — Mitigating circumstances — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Cooperation)

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/11

         Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 March 2011 — World Wide Tobacco España v Commission
   (Case T-37/05) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Fines - Deterrent effect - Equal treatment - Mitigating circumstances - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Cooperation)
   2011/C 120/27
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: World Wide Tobacco España SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: initially M. Odriozola Alén, M. Marañon Hermoso and A. Emch, then M. Odriozola Alén, M. Barrantes Diaz and A. João Vide, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and É. Gippini Fournier, agents)

      Re:

   Application for a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant in the Commission decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               sets the amount of the fine imposed on World Wide Tobacco España SA in Article 3 of the Commission decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain) at EUR 1 579 500;

               2.

               dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               orders World Wide Tobacco España to bear three quarters of its own costs and three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission, and orders the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs and one quarter of the costs incurred by World Wide Tobacco España.

      (1)  OJ C 82, of 2.4.2005.


title: Case T-423/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  5 October 2005  — Bunker & BKR v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition — Application for a Community figurative mark containing the verbal element  B.K.R.  — Earlier national word mark BK RODS — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 October 2005 — Bunker & BKR v OHIM
   (Case T-423/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Application for a Community figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘B.K.R.’ - Earlier national word mark BK RODS - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 296/48)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Bunker & BKR, SL (Almansa, Spain) (represented by: J. Astiz Suárez, lawyer)

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

      Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Marine Stock Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)
   Application for
   annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2004 (Case R 0458/2002-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Bunker & BKR, SL and Marine Stock Ltd
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 June 2004 (Case R 0458/2002-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant;

               3.

               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.


title: Case T-489/08: Order of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — Power-One Italy v Commission (Action for compensation — Project cofunded by the financial instrument LIFE + — Development of a new system of supplying power for use in mobile telephony (Pneuma project) — Abuse of process — Disregard of formal requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/23

         Order of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — Power-One Italy v Commission
   (Case T-489/08) (1)

   (Action for compensation - Project cofunded by the financial instrument LIFE + - Development of a new system of supplying power for use in mobile telephony (Pneuma project) - Abuse of process - Disregard of formal requirements - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 211/51
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Power-One Italy SpA (Terranova Bracciolini, Italy) (represented by R.Giuffrida and A. Giussani, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by P. Oliver and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for compensation for loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the Commission’s decision to end the Pneuma project (LIFE04 ENV/IT/000595), intended to cofund development of a new system of supplying power for use in mobile telephony.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court hereby orders:

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Power-One Italy SpA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.


title: Order of the Court of 26 November 1999 in Case C-192/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti): ex post facto review proceedings against Azienda Nazionale Autonoma delle Strade (ANAS) (Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC)— Definition of "court or tribunal of a Member State" — Directive 92/50/EC — Procedures for the award of public service contracts)

text:
18.3.2000               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 79/3
1. Sets aside points 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment                               ORDER OF THE COURT
     of the Court of First Instance of 19 February 1998 in Joined
     Cases T-369/94 and T-85/95 DIR International Film and
     Others v Commission;                                                                            (Fourth Chamber)
2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;
                                                                                of 9 December 1999
3. Reserves the costs.
(1) OJ C 184 of 13.6.1998.                                                   in Case C-299/98 P: CPL Imperial 2 SpA and Unifrigo
                                                                             Gadus Srl v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Appeal — Recovery of post-clearance customs duties —
                                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                             No 2454/93 — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and mani-
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                                                festly unfounded)
                      of 26 November 1999
                                                                                (2000/C 79/06)
in Case C-192/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Corte dei Conti): ex post facto review proceedings
against Azienda Nazionale Autonoma delle Strade
                              (ANAS) (1)                                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
(Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) —
Definition of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ —
Directive 92/50/EC — Procedures for the award of public                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                         service contracts)                                                     in the European Court Reports)
                           (2000/C 79/05)
                                                                             In Case C-299/98 P: CPL Imperial 2 SpA, established in
                                                                             Pescara, Italy, and Unifrigo Gadus Srl, established in Naples,
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                          Italy, represented by G. Celona, of the Milan Bar, with an
                                                                             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                             G. Margue, 20 Rue Philippe II — appeal against the judgment
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                   in the European Court Reports)                            (Third Chamber) of 9 June 1998 in Joined Cases T-10/97 and
                                                                             T-11/97 Unifrigo Gadus and CPL Imperial 2 v Commission
In Case C-192/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                [1998] ECR II-2231, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Corte dei Conti                  the other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the ex post facto review                 European Communities (Agent: P. Stancanelli) — the Court
proceedings pending before that court against Azienda Nazion-                of Justice (Fourth Chamber), composed of D.A.O. Edward
ale Autonoma delle Strade (ANAS) on the interpretation of                    (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the                  H. Ragnemalm, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General;
coordination of procedures for the award of public service                   R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 9 December 1999, in
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — the Court, composed of                     which it:
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and R. Schintgen, Presi-               1. Dismisses the appeal;
dents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puisso-
chet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and
V. Skouris, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass,                   2. Orders CPL Imperial 2 SpA and Unifrigo Gadus Srl to pay the
Registrar, has made an order on 26 November 1999, the                             costs.
operative part of which is as follows:
The Court does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions raised
by the Corte dei Conti in its decision for reference of 7 April 1998.        (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2004 in Case T-333/02: Gestoras Pro-Amnistía and Others v Council of the European Union (Action for damages — Justice and home affairs — Common position of the Council — Measures concerning persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts — Manifest lack of jurisdiction — Action manifestly unfounded)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/40

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 7 June 2004
   in Case T-333/02: Gestoras Pro-Amnistía and Others v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Action for damages - Justice and home affairs - Common position of the Council - Measures concerning persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts - Manifest lack of jurisdiction - Action manifestly unfounded)
   (2004/C 228/90)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-333/02, Gestoras Pro-Amnistía, Juan Mari Olano Olano, residing in Gradignan (France), Julen Zelarain Errasti, residing in Madrid (Spain), represented by D. Rouget, lawyer, v Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Vitsentzatos et M. Bauer), supported by the Kingdom of Spain, represented by its Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg, and by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: initially P. Ormond, subsequently C. Jackson, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for damages as compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the inclusion of Gestoras Pro-Amnistía in the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts provided for in Article 1 of the Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93), of the Council Common Position of 2 May 2002 updating Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (OJ 2002 L 116, p. 75), and of the Council Common Position of 17 June 2002 updating Common Position 2001/931/CFSP and repealing Common Position 2002/340/CFSP (OJ 2002 L 160, p. 32) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N. J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an Order on 7 June 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1)

               The action is dismissed.

               2)

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.


title: Case C-343/05: Judgement of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  18 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2001/37/EC — Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products — Prohibition on placing on the market of tobacco for oral use — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/10

         Judgement of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-343/05) (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/37/EC - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products - Prohibition on placing on the market of tobacco for oral use - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 178/16)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and M. Huttunen, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Himmanen, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Article 8a of Council Directive 89/622/EEC of 13 November 1989 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the labelling of tobacco products (OJ 1989 L 359, p.1) as inserted by Council Directive 92/41/EEC of 15 May 1992 amending that directive (OJ 1992 L 158, p. 30), and Article 8 of Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products — Commission statement (OJ L 194, p. 26) — Prohibition on placing on the market of tobacco for oral use in relation to Åland and vessels registered in Finland
   Operative part of the judgement
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to ensure transposition by Åland of Article 8a of Directive 89/622/EEC of 13 November 1989 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the labelling of tobacco products, as amended by Council Directive 92/41/EEC of 15 May 1992, amended by Article 8 of Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products, and observance on vessels registered in Finland of the prohibition on placing on the market of snuff laid down by that provision, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and Directive 2001/37;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: Case T-8/03: Action brought on 10 January 2003 by El Corte Inglés against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 70/26                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       22.3.2003
       the requirements of Article 280(1) EC, i.e. it does not aim          The applicant claims that the Court should:
       at countering fraud which affects the financial interests of
       the Community, it does not follow the procedure of
       Article 280(4) EC combined with Article 251 EC, and it               —     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
       does not comply with the express exclusion of criminal                     Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM)
       law and the administration of justice in Article 280(4)                    of 3 October 2002 in Joined Cases R 700/2000-4 and
       EC;                                                                        R 746/2000-4;
—      the contested act circumvents existing Community legis-
       lation on money laundering;                                          —     refuse to register Community trade mark No 203570;
—      the EC, represented by the Commission, has assumed
       the self-appointed role of ‘European Public Prosecutor’,             —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
       contrary to the Treaty and to the will of the Member
       States.
The applicants allege that the EC, represented by the Com-
mission, has engaged in forum shopping aimed at bypassing                   Pleas in law and main arguments
the shortcomings of the Members States and the EC, and that
it is not constitutionally competent to act on behalf of the
Member States.
                                                                            Applicant for the Com-       EMILIO PUCCI S.R.L.
                                                                            munity trade mark:
Furthermore, the applicants submit that the contested act
violates the appropriate means of settling disputes concerning
the interpretation and application of the Treaty pursuant to                The Community trade          ‘Emilio Pucci’, in manuscript
Article 292 EC. It also violates the obligation to state reasons            mark concerned:              handwriting — Application
and the following general principles and fundamental rights:                                             No 203570 for goods in Class-
the principle of proportionality, the principles of legitimate                                           es 3, 18, 24 and 25
expectations and of legal certainty as well as the rights of
defence and due process. Finally, the applicant maintains that
                                                                            Proprietor of the right to   The applicant
the defendant has misused its powers by adopting the contested
                                                                            the trade mark or sign
act.
                                                                            asserted by way of oppo-
                                                                            sition in the opposition
( 1) The decision to commence the first proceedings was contested by        proceedings:
     the applicants in Case T-379/00 (JO C 79 of 10.3.2001, p. 24).
     The decision to commence the second proceedings was challenged
     by the applicants in Case T-260/01 (JO C 3 of 5.1.2002 p. 39).         Trade mark or sign           EMIDIO TUCCI (in manuscript
                                                                            asserted by way of oppo-     handwriting No 1908876 for
                                                                            sition in the opposition     goods in Class 3, and No 855782
                                                                            proceedings:                 for goods in Class 25)
                                                                            Decision of the Oppo-        Registration refused for goods in
                                                                            sition Division:             Classes 3, 18 and 25 and appli-
Action brought on 10 January 2003 by El Corte Inglés                                                     cation for registration upheld for
against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                                  goods in Class 25 and for certain
                (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)                                                         goods in Class 18
                            (Case T-8/03)                                   Decision of the Board of     Appeal brought by the opponent
                                                                            Appeal:                      dismissed and action brought by
                           (2003/C 70/42)                                                                the applicant upheld in respect of
                                                                                the goods refused in Class 18
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                            Grounds of claim:            Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-
                                                                                lihood of confusion) and of
An action against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                               Article 8(5) thereof
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
10 January 2003 by El Corte Inglés, whose registered office is
in Madrid, represented by Juan Luis Rivas Zurdo.


title: Case C-601/10: Action brought on 17 December 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/22

         Action brought on 17 December 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-601/10)
   2011/C 63/41
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Kukovec)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, through the award of public contracts by the negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice, relating to additional land-registry and town-planning services that were not included in the initial contract of the municipalities of Vasilika, Kassandra, Egnatia and Arethousa, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8 and 11(3) of Directive 92/50/EEC (1) and Articles 20 and 31(4) of Directive 2004/18/EC; (2)

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission submits that, given that (i) the abovementioned municipalities, as local authorities, are contracting authorities within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Directive 92/50 and Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18, (ii) contracts for pecuniary interest relating to urban planning services are involved (Article 8 of, in conjunction with category 12 of Annex I A to, Directive 92/50; and Article 20 of, in conjunction with category 12 of Annex II A to, Directive 2004/18) and (iii) the estimated value of each contract complained of exceeds the thresholds prescribed in Article 7 of Directive 92/50 and Article 7 of Directive 2004/18, the contracts in dispute fall within the scope of those directives.

         (i)

         Infringement of Articles 8 and 11(3) of Directive 92/50

   As regards the disputed contracts for additional services that were awarded by the Municipality of Kassandra, the Commission observes that the contracting authority elected for the direct-award procedure without prior publication of a contract notice whereas the conditions, laid down in Articles 8 and 11(3)(e) of Directive 92/50, that allow recourse to that exceptional procedure and are applicable to the contracts in question were not met. More specifically, the condition requiring that there be exceptional circumstances was not met for any of the disputed contracts for additional services.
   In the alternative, the Commission states that even if the conditions for the exception under Article 11(3)(e) of Directive 92/50 were met, the amount of the contracts awarded for additional services exceeds the limit, laid down by the directive, of 50 % of the amount of the original contract.

         (ii)

         Infringement of Articles 20 and 31(4) of Directive 2004/18

   As regards the disputed contracts for additional services that were awarded by the Municipalities of Vasilika, Egnatia and Arethousa, the Commission observes that the contracting authorities elected for the direct-award procedure without prior publication of a contract notice whereas the conditions, laid down in Articles 20 and 31(4)(a) of Directive 2004/18, that allow recourse to that exceptional procedure and are applicable to the contracts in question were not met. More specifically, the condition requiring that there be exceptional circumstances was not met for any of the disputed contracts for additional services.
   In the alternative, the Commission states that even if the conditions for the exception under Article 31(4)(a) of Directive 2004/18 were met, the amount of the contracts awarded for additional services exceeds the limit, laid down by the directive, of 50 % of the amount of the original contract.
   As to the assertion of the Hellenic Republic that the procedure which was followed for the award of the contracts complained of was consistent with the national legal framework in force at the time, the Commission observes that the procedure which was followed was contrary to Directive 92/50 which had already been transposed into Greek law at the time when the foregoing contracts were entered into (and to Directive 2004/18, introduced subsequently). In any event, the Commission states that the procedure in question was not compatible with the national legal framework invoked either.
   Given that the Member States may not plead internal circumstances in order to justify a failure to comply with obligations and time-limits resulting from Community law, the Commission considers that, by failing to ensure the adoption and effective application of the measures that are necessary to comply with the requirements of Community law, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8 and 11(3) of Directive 92/50 and Articles 20 and 31(4) of Directive 2004/18.

      (1)  OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 114.


title: Case C-535/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — Moser Baer India Ltd v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, Committee of European CD-R and DVD+/-R Manufacturers (CECMA) (Appeal — Dumping — Imports of recordable compact discs originating in India — Regulation (EC) No 960/2003 — Calculation of the amount of countervailable subsidy — Determination of injury — Article 8(7) of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — Moser Baer India Ltd v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, Committee of European CD-R and DVD+/-R Manufacturers (CECMA)
   (Case C-535/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Dumping - Imports of recordable compact discs originating in India - Regulation (EC) No 960/2003 - Calculation of the amount of countervailable subsidy - Determination of injury - Article 8(7) of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97)
   2009/C 256/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Moser Baer India Ltd (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, dikigoros, and R. MacLean, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, Agents), Committee of European CD-R and DVD+/-R Manufacturers (CECMA)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 4 October 2006 in Case T-300/03 Moser Baer India v Council, which dismissed an action for annulment of Regulation (EC) No 960/2003 of 2 June 2003 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of recordable compact discs originating in India (OJ 2003 L 138, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the appellant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Moser Baer India Ltd to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case C-681/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2015 — Asklepios Dienstleistungsgesellschaft mbH v Vittoria Graf

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2015 — Asklepios Dienstleistungsgesellschaft mbH v Vittoria Graf
   (Case C-681/15)
   (2016/C 118/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Asklepios Dienstleistungsgesellschaft mbH

      Respondent: Vittoria Graf

      Questions referred

   I.

               1.

               Does Article 3 of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 (1) preclude a provision of national law which provides that, in the event of a transfer of an undertaking or business, all conditions of employment agreed between the transferor and the employee, individually and in the exercise of their freedom of contract, in the contract of employment transfer to the transferee unaltered, as if he had himself agreed them in an individual contract with the employee, where national law provides for both consensual and unilateral adjustments by the transferee?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, either generally or for a defined group of individually agreed conditions of employment in the employment contract between the transferor and employee:
               Does the application of Article 3 of Directive 2001/23/EC have the effect that certain terms of the contract of employment between the transferor and the employee which have been agreed in the exercise of freedom of contract are to be excluded from being transferred unaltered to the transferee, and are to be adjusted simply by reason of the transfer of the undertaking or business?

               3.

               If, according to the Court of Justice’s answers to Questions 1 and 2, an individual provision which has been agreed in an individual contract, under which certain provisions in a collective agreement are, dynamically and in the exercise of freedom of contract, incorporated into the employment contract, is not transferred unaltered to the transferee:

                           a)

                           Does this apply also where neither the transferor nor the transferee is party to a collective agreement or is affiliated to such a party, that is, where, even prior to the transfer of the undertaking or business, the provisions in the collective agreement would not have been applicable to the employment relationship with the transferor in the absence of the term referring to them in the agreement made, in the exercise of freedom of contract, in the contract of employment?

                           b)

                           If the answer to that question is in the affirmative:
                           Does this apply also if the transferor and the transferee are undertakings within the same group?

         II.
   Does Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude a national provision enacted to implement Directive 77/187/EEC (2) or Directive 2001/23/EC which provides that, in the event of a transfer of an undertaking or a business, the transferee is bound by the conditions of employment agreed individually and in the exercise of their freedom of contract by the transferor with the employee as if he had agreed them himself, even if these conditions incorporate certain provisions of a collective agreement, which would not otherwise apply to the employment contract, into the employment contract dynamically, in so far as national law provides for both consensual and unilateral adjustments by the transferee?

      (1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).

      (2)  Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ 1977 L 61, p. 26).


title: Case C-278/03: Action brought on 26 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 213/14                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          6.9.2003
Furthermore, it is evident that the difficulty in proving that the        the Italian civil service, periods of comparable work completed
misconduct of the State or public bodies was culpably or                  in the civil service of a Member State other than Italy must be
maliciously intended could, in practice, result in actions for            taken into consideration by the Italian authorities in the same
damages brought by persons harmed by an infringement being                way as experience gained in the Italian civil service.
delayed and, in all likelihood, unsuccessful. Such a situation
undermines the effectiveness of Article 1(1) of the directive,
namely that effective and rapid remedies must be available in             The Commission submits that the current practice in Italy is
the case of infringements of Community law in the field of                not to take into consideration time spent in comparable
public procurement or national rules implementing that law.               occupations in the civil service of other Member States. That
                                                                          practice on the part of the Ministry of Education is inconsistent
                                                                          with the aforesaid laws.
( 1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 257 of 19.10.1968 p. 2.
Action brought on 26 June 2003 by the Commission of                       Action brought on 24 June 2003 by the Commission
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic                  of the European Communities against the European
                                                                                Economic Interest Grouping Lior and Others
                          (Case C-278/03)                                                           (Case C-280/03)
                          (2003/C 213/24)                                                           (2003/C 213/25)
                                                                          An action against the European Economic Interest Grouping
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the             Lior, Deira SA, Eutec Srl, Mindshare Bvba, Società Politecnica
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 June                   Italiana (SPI) Sarl, Beneport SA, Europe Information Service
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       SA, Managium Sprl, Pi Due Sprl, C.A.R.M.E.N. e.v., Energy
represented by M.-J. Jonczy, acting as Agent.                             Research Group/University College Dublin, ORCA-Organic
                                                                          Reclamation and Composting Ass. AIBS, R.P.A. Spa, Aris
                                                                          Hellas Ltd, and against Lior International n.v., was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               on 24 June 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agent,
—      find that, by failing to take into account professional            assisted by M. Bra, avocat, with an address for service in
       experience gained by European Union citizens in the civil          Luxembourg.
       service of a Member State other than Italy for the
       purposes of their participation in competitions for the
       selection of staff to teach at Italian state schools, the          The Commission of the European Communities claims that
       Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under        the Court should:
       Article 39 EC and Article 3 of Council Regulation
       No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of move-                  —     declare the present action admissible and well-founded in
       ment for workers within the Community (1);                               its entirety;
—      order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                       —     As the main plea: hold the Lior Grouping and the
                                                                                defendants jointly liable to pay the Commission the sum
                                                                                of the debit notes issued for all the disputed contracts,
                                                                                namely the total sum of EUR 142 818,86, plus interest
                                                                                under Article 94 of Commission Regulation No 3418/
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 93 ( 1) until 31 December 2002, and under Article 86(2)(b)
                                                                                of Commission Regulation No 2342/2002 (2) as from
                                                                                1 January 2003, dating from the day after the maturity
                                                                                date of each of the debit notes issued, until the day of
Article 39 EC and Article 3 of Regulation No 1612/68 must                       full payment of the principal debt and interest, more
be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of entering                    particularly:


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 September 2004 in Case C-417/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2001/18/EC — Deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 30 September 2004
   in Case C-417/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/18/EC - Deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2004/C 284/10)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-417/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: B. Stromsky) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: E. Dominkovits) — action brought on 3 October 2003 under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann (Rapporteur) and M. Ilešič, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003.


title: Case C-205/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Umweltsenat (Austria) lodged on 19 May 2008 — Umweltanwalt von Kärnten, other parties Kärnter Landesregierung, Alpe Adria Energia SpA

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Umweltsenat (Austria) lodged on 19 May 2008 — Umweltanwalt von Kärnten, other parties Kärnter Landesregierung, Alpe Adria Energia SpA
   (Case C-205/08)
   (2008/C 209/30)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Umweltsenat
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Umweltanwalt von Kärnten

      Other parties: Kärnter Landesregierung, Alpe Adria Energia SpA
   Question referred
   Is Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1), as amended by the Amending Directive, Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2) and the Public Participation Directive, 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 (3), to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State must provide for an obligation to carry out an assessment in the case of types of projects listed in Annex I to the directive, in particular in point 20 (construction of overhead electrical power lines with a voltage of 220 kV or more and a length of more than 15 km), where the proposed scheme is to extend over the territory of two or more Member States, even if the threshold giving rise to the obligation to carry out an assessment (here, a length of 15 kilometres) is not reached or exceeded by the part of the scheme situated on its national territory but is reached or exceeded by adding the parts of the scheme proposed to be situated in a neighbouring State or States?

      (1)  OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.

      (2)  OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5.

      (3)  OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17.


title: Case C-442/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Bayer CropScience SA-NV, Stichting De Bijenstichting v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Aarhus Convention — Directive 2003/4/EC — Article 4(2) — Public access to information — Concept of ‘information relating to emissions into the environment’ — Directive 91/414/EEC — Directive 98/8/EC — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Placing of plant protection products and biocides on the market — Confidentiality — Protection of industrial and commercial interests)

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Bayer CropScience SA-NV, Stichting De Bijenstichting v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden
   (Case C-442/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Aarhus Convention - Directive 2003/4/EC - Article 4(2) - Public access to information - Concept of ‘information relating to emissions into the environment’ - Directive 91/414/EEC - Directive 98/8/EC - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Placing of plant protection products and biocides on the market - Confidentiality - Protection of industrial and commercial interests))
   (2017/C 030/03)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bayer CropScience SA-NV, Stichting De Bijenstichting

      Defendant: College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden

      third party: Makhtesim-Agan Holland BV

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the applicant for authorisation to place a plant protection product or biocide on the market, did not, during the procedure for obtaining that authorisation, request that information submitted under that procedure be treated as confidential on the basis of Article 14 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, Article 19 of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market or Article 33(4) and Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC does not preclude the competent authority, which has received, following the closure of that procedure, a request for access to the information submitted on the basis of Directive 2003/4 by a third party, from examining the applicant’s objection to that request for access and refusing it, if necessary, pursuant to point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(2) of that directive on the ground that the disclosure of that information would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information.

               2.

               The second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4 must be interpreted as follows:

                           —

                           ‘emissions into the environment’ within the meaning of that provision covers the release into the environment of products or substances such as plant protection products or biocides and substances contained in those products, to the extent that that release is actual or foreseeable under normal or realistic conditions of use;

                           —

                           ‘information on emissions into the environment’ within the meaning of that provision covers information concerning the nature, composition, quantity, date and place of the ‘emissions into the environment’ of those products or substances, and data concerning the medium to long-term consequences of those emissions on the environment, in particular information relating to residues in the environment following application of the product in question and studies on the measurement of the substance’s drift during that application, whether the data comes from studies performed entirely or in part in the field, or from laboratory or translocation studies.

               3.

               The second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4 must be interpreted as meaning, in the event of a request for access to information on emissions into the environment whose disclosure would adversely affect one of the interests referred to in points (a), (d), and (f) to (h) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(2) of that directive, that only relevant data which may be extracted from the source of information concerning emissions into the environment must be disclosed where it is possible to separate those data from the other information contained in that source, which is for the referring court to assess.

      (1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.


title: Case T-278/16: Action brought on 31 May 2016 — Atlas Copco Airpower and Atlas Copco v Commission

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/34

         Action brought on 31 May 2016 — Atlas Copco Airpower and Atlas Copco v Commission
   (Case T-278/16)
   (2016/C 279/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Atlas Copco Airpower (Antwerp, Belgium) and Atlas Copco AB (Nacka, Sweden) (represented by: A. von Bonin, A. Haelterman and O. Brouwer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Comission of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error of law and manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged state aid measure and its classification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 107 TFUE.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error in law and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFUE in holding that the Excess Profits adjustments system constitutes State aid.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the identification of the beneficiaries of the alleged aid, inconsistency in holding the multinational groups as beneficiaries and violation of the principle of legality and Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and sound administration.


title: Case C-3/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 8 January 2008 — Ketty Leyman v Institut national d'assurance maladie-invalidité (I.N.A.M.I.)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 8 January 2008 — Ketty Leyman v Institut national d'assurance maladie-invalidité (I.N.A.M.I.)
   (Case C-3/08)
   (2008/C 79/27)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal du travail de Nivelles
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ketty Leyman

      Defendant: Institut national d'assurance maladie-invalidité (I.N.A.M.I.)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 40(3)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) and Article 93 of the Consolidated Laws of 14 July 1994 on medical care and sickness insurance benefit contrary to Article 18 of the EC Treaty in that, where a worker lives and works in a type A country (in this case, Belgium) and moves to a type B country (in this case, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), they do not permit, during the first year of incapacity for work, the grant of an allowance that takes into account the length of time worked and the period of contribution in the type A country (Belgium)?

               2.

               Are Article 40(3)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Article 93 of the Consolidated Laws of 14 July 1994 on medical care and sickness insurance benefit contrary to Article 18 of the EC Treaty in that, where a worker lives and works in a type A country (in this case, Belgium) and moves to a type B country (in this case, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), they give rise to discrimination to the detriment of a worker exercising her right of free movement in not permitting the grant to her, during the first year of incapacity for work, of an allowance that takes into account the length of time worked and the period of contribution in the type A country (Belgium)?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2), as amended.


title: Case T-227/13: Action brought on 17 April 2013 — Bayer Intellectual Property/OHIM — Interhygiene (INTERFACE)

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/15

         Action brought on 17 April 2013 — Bayer Intellectual Property/OHIM — Interhygiene (INTERFACE)
   (Case T-227/13)
   2013/C 178/25
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH (Monheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Interhygiene GmbH (Cuxhaven, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision for being contrary to law insofar as it declares that the INTERFACE Community trademark application is incompatible with the earlier Interfog trademark;

               —

               Expressly sentence OHIM to court fees.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘INTERFACE’ for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application 8 133 977

      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 in opposition: Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘Interfog’ for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-286/16: Action brought on 2 June 2016 — Kneidinger v EUIPO — Topseat International (Toilet Lid)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/50

         Action brought on 2 June 2016 — Kneidinger v EUIPO — Topseat International (Toilet Lid)
   (Case T-286/16)
   (2016/C 260/62)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ernst Kneidinger (Wilhering, Austria) (represented by: M. Grötschl, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Topseat International (Plano, Texas, USA)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

      Design at issue: Community design No 2274035-0001

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2016 in Case R 1030/2015-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs — in particular the cost of the pleadings and the further costs of any possible oral proceedings and travel costs — and the costs incurred during the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 6(1) and (3) of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case C-230/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 28 May 2008 — Dansk Transport og Logistik v Skatteministeriet

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 28 May 2008 — Dansk Transport og Logistik v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-230/08)
   (2008/C 197/24)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Referring court
   Østre Landsret
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dansk Transport og Logistik

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet (Danish Ministry of Taxation)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the expression ‘seized … and simultaneously or subsequently confiscated’ contained in Article 233d of the Customs Code (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the provision covers situations where goods detained under the first sentence of Paragraph 83(1) of the Customs Law on unlawful importation are simultaneously or subsequently destroyed by the customs authorities without their having left the authorities' possession?

               2.

               Is the System Directive (2) to be interpreted as meaning that unlawfully imported goods which are seized on importation or simultaneously or subsequently destroyed are to be deemed to have been placed under ‘a suspension arrangement’ with the effect that the excise duty is not incurred or is extinguished (see the first subparagraph of Article 5(2) and Article 6(1)(c) of the System Directive, read in conjunction with Articles 84(1)(a) and 98 of the Customs Code, and Article 876a of the implementing provisions (3))? Is the answer affected by whether or not a customs debt incurred on such unlawful importation is extinguished under Article 233d of the Customs Code?

               3.

               Is the Sixth Directive (4) to be interpreted as meaning that unlawfully imported goods seized on importation and simultaneously or subsequently destroyed by the authorities are to be deemed to have been placed under a ‘customs warehousing procedure’ with the effect that the VAT debt is not incurred or is extinguished (See Articles 7(3), 10(3) and 16(1)(B)(c) of the Sixth Directive and Article 876a of the implementing provisions)? Is the answer affected by whether or not a customs debt incurred on such unlawful importation is extinguished under Article 233d of the Customs Code?

               4.

               Are the Customs Code, the implementing provisions and the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities in the Member State where unlawful importation of goods during a TIR operation is detected are competent to charge customs duty, excise duty and VAT on the operation where the authorities in another Member State, where the unlawful importation into the Community occurred, did not detect the irregularity and consequently did not charge customs duty, excise duty and VAT (see Article 215 of the Customs Code, read in conjunction with Article 217 thereof, Articles 454(2) and (3) of the implementing provisions then in force, and Article 7 of the Sixth Directive)?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1).

      (3)  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 L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1).

      (4)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).


               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/1

         2009/C 233/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 220, 12.9.2009

      Past publications

      OJ C 205, 29.8.2009

      OJ C 193, 15.8.2009

      OJ C 180, 1.8.2009

      OJ C 167, 18.7.2009

      OJ C 153, 4.7.2009

      OJ C 141, 20.6.2009

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Joined Cases T-44/02 OP, T-54/02 OP, T-56/02 OP, T-60/02 OP and T-61(02 OP: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Dresdner Bank and Others v Commission (Competition — Article 81 EC — Price-fixing agreement and ways of charging for currency exchange services — Germany — Evidence of the infringement — Application to set aside judgments delivered by default)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/42

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Dresdner Bank and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-44/02 OP, T-54/02 OP, T-56/02 OP, T-60/02 OP and T-61(02 OP) (1)

   (Competition - Article 81 EC - Price-fixing agreement and ways of charging for currency exchange services - Germany - Evidence of the infringement - Application to set aside judgments delivered by default)
   (2006/C 294/88)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Dresdner Bank AG (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by: M. Hirsch and W. Bosch, lawyers); Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, formerly Vereins- und Westbank AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by:initially J. Schulte, M. Ewen and A. Neus, and subsequently W. Knapp, T. Müller-Ibold and C. Feddersen, lawyers); Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG (Munich) (represented by: initially W. Knapp, T. Müller-Ibold and B. Bergmann, and subsequently W. Knapp, T. Müller-Ibold and C. Feddersen, lawyers); DVB Bank AG, formerly Deutsche Verkehrsbank AG (Frankfurt-am-Main) (represented by: M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer, lawyers); and Commerzbank AG (Frankfurt-am-Main) (represented by: H. Satzky and B. Maassen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Christoforou, A. Nijenhuis and M Schneider, Agents)
   Re:
   Application by the Commission to set aside the judgments of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 2004 in Cases T-44/02 Dresdner Bank v Commission, not published in the ECR, T-54/02 Vereins- und Westbank v Commission, not published in the ECR, T-56/02 Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank v Commission [2004] ECR II-3495, T-60/02 Deutsche Verkehrsbank v Commission, not published in the ECR, and T-61/02 Commerzbank v Commission, not published in the ECR, delivered in default
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application to set aside the judgments by default;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 4.5.2002.


title: Case T-16/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — Mast-Jägermeister v EUIPO (Beakers) (Community design — Application for Community designs representing beakers — ‘Representation suitable for reproduction’ — Lack of precision of the representation with regard to the scope of the protection sought — Refusal to remedy the deficiencies — Refusal to attribute a date of filing — Articles 36 and 46 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Articles 4(1)(e) and 10(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002)

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — Mast-Jägermeister v EUIPO (Beakers)
   (Case T-16/16) (1)

   ((Community design - Application for Community designs representing beakers - ‘Representation suitable for reproduction’ - Lack of precision of the representation with regard to the scope of the protection sought - Refusal to remedy the deficiencies - Refusal to attribute a date of filing - Articles 36 and 46 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Articles 4(1)(e) and 10(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002))
   (2017/C 086/34)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mast-Jägermeister SE (Wolfenbüttel, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus and J. Engberding, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 November 2015 (Case R 1842/2015 3), concerning applications for the registration of beakers as Community designs.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mast-Jägermeister SE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 11 August 1995 in Case C-433/93: Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (Actions against Member States for failure to fulfil obligations - Public works and public supply contracts)

text:
 14 . 10 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 268/5
      products concerned, so that it is important in particular        Article 37 (2) and the first paragraph of Article 38 of the
      to ascertain whether the charge would have the effect,            Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
      on the market in question, of reducing potential                 Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
      consumption of the imported products to the advantage            Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978
      of competing domestic products. The national court               on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and
      must have regard here to the difference between the              the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
      selling prices of the products in question and the impact        are to be interpreted as meaning that a decision by which a
      of that difference on the consumer's choice, as well as to       court of a Contracting State, seised of an appeal against
      changes in the consumption of those products.                    authorization to enforce an enforceable judgment ofa court
                                                                       in another Contracting State, refuses a stay or lifts a stay
                                                                       previously ordered cannot be contested by an appeal in
4 . There are no grounds for limiting in time the effects of           cassation or similar form of appeal limited to the
      the present judgment.                                            examination of points of law only. Moreover, the court
                                                                       seised of such an appeal on a point of law under
(') OJ No C 251 , 15 . 9 . 1993 .
                                                                       Article 37 (2) ofthe Convention dies not have jurisdiction to
                                                                       impose or reimpose such a stay.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Sixth Chamber)                                                   of 11 August 1995
                        of 11 August 1995                              in Case C-433/93 : Commission of the European
in Case C-432/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany ( 1 )
the Court of Appeal ( Civil Division )): Société                       (Actions against Member States for failure to fulfil
d'Informatique Service Réalisation Organisation ( SISRO )               obligations — Public works and public supply contracts)
                  v. Ampersand Software BV ( ] )                                                 95/C 268/ 10 )
(Brussels Convention — Articles 36, 37 and 38 —
Enforcement — Judgment given on an appeal against
authorization ofenforcement — Appeal on a point oflaw —                               (Language of the case: German)
                       Stay ofproceedings)
                            ( 95/C 268/09 )                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                 (Language of the case: English)                       In Case C-433/93 : Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities ( agents : Hendrik van Lier and Angela
                                                                       Bardenhewer ) v. Federal Republic of Germany ( agents : Kay
In Case C-432/93 : reference to the Court under the Protocol           Hailbronner, Professor at the University of Konstanz, and
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice           Bernd Kloke ) — application for a declaration that, by failing
of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction                 to adopt or notify within the prescribed period all the
and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial               measures necessary to comply with the requirements arising
Matters by the Court of Appeal ( Civil Division ), London,             under Council Directive 88/295/EEC of 22 March 1988
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before             amending Directive 77/62/EEC relating to the coordination
that court between Société d'Informatique Service                      of procedures on the award of public supply contracts and
Réalisation Organisation ( SISRO ) and Ampersand Software              repealing certain provisions of Directive 80/767/EEC ( OJ
BV — on the interpretation of Article 37 (2 ) and the first            No L 127, p. 1 ) and under Council Directive 89/440/EEC of
paragraph of Article 38 of the said Convention of                      18 July 1989 amending Directive 71/305/EEC concerning
27 September 1968 ( OJ No L 304 , p . 36 ) as amended by the           coordination of procedures for the award of public works
Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the                   contracts ( OJ No L 210, p . 1 ), the Federal Republic of
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of                  Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC
Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( OJ No L 304, p . 1 and            Treaty, now the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C.
— as amended — p . 77 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),                 Rodriguez Iglesias , President, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G.
composed of: F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), President of           Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and P. Jann ( Presidents of
the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. L. Murray               Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho
and G. Hirsch, Judges, P. Léger, Advocate-General; D.                  de Almeida, J. L. Murray, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and L.
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                     Sevon, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 August 1995 , the                Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
operative part of which is as follows:                                 11 August 1995 , in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- No C 268/6              EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 10 . 95
1 , declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    period the laws, regulations and administrative                                             ( Fifth Chamber)
    provisions necessary to comply with the requirements
    arising under Council Directive 88/29S/EEC of                                             of 11 August 1995
    22 March 1 988 amending Directive 77/62/EEC relating               in Case C-l /94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
    to the coordination of procedures on the award of                  Consiglio di Stato ): Cavarzere Produzioni Industriali SpA
    public supply contracts and repealing certain provisions           and Others v. Ministero dell'Agricoltura e delle Foreste and
    of Directive 80/767/EEC and under Council Directive                                              Others (M
    89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989 amending Directive                      (Common organization of the market — Sugar quotas —
    71 /305/EEC concerning coordination ofprocedures for                               Transfers between undertakings)
    the award of public works contracts, the Federal
    Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations                                      ( 95/C 268/12 )
    under the EC Treaty;
2 , orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
    costs .
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
H OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .                                                 published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-l /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                       the EC Treaty from the Consiglio di Stato (Council ofState)
                                                                       ( Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                       before that court between Cavarzere Produzioni Industriali
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    SpA and Others and Ministero deH'Agricoltura e delle
                         ( Fifth Chamber)                              Foreste and Others — on the interpretation of Council
                                                                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the
                        of 11 August 1995
                                                                       common organization of the markets in the sugar sector ( OJ
in Case C-448/93 P: Commission of the European                         No L 177, p. 4 ) and Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 193/82 of
            Communities v. Muireann Noonan ( x )                       26 January 1982 laying down general rules for transfers of
(Appeal — Official — Admissibility ofan action challenging             quotas in the sugar sector ( OJ No L 21 , p. 3 ) — the Court
a decision of a selection board applying the conditions laid           ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of
down in a competition notice the lawfulness of which is                the Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , D. A. O.
                              contested)                               Edward and L. Sevon, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General;
                           ( 95/C 268/ 11 )                            H. A. Rùhl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                       given a judgment on 11 August 1 995 , in which it rules :
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       I . Member States may not, for the marketing year starting
In Case C-448/93 P: Commission of the European                               on 1 July, exercise the power ofmanoeuvre conferred on
Communities ( agent: John Forman ) — appeal against the                      them by Article 25 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                      No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common
Communities ( Fourth Chamber ) of 16 September 1993 in                       organization of the markets in the sugar sector after the
Case T-60/92 Muireann Noonan v. Commission [ 1993 ]                          date of 1 March laid down by Council Regulation (EEC)
ECR 11-911 , seeking to have that judgment set aside, the                    No 193/82 of 26 January 1982 laying down general
other party to the proceedings being: Muireann Noonan,                       rules for transfers of quotas in the sugar sector, even if
represented by James O'Reilly, Senior Counsel, with an                       the Council Regulation fixing the quotas and stating
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                          that power to be applicable has been adopted after
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue Glesener the Court ( Fifth                      1 March, since no Community legislation expressly
Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida                            derogating from that time limit has been enacted;
( Rapporteur ), acting as President of the Chamber, D. A. O.
Edward and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; P. Léger,                        2 , the power ofmanoeuvre conferred on Member States by
Advocate-General ; R. Grass, for the Registrar, has given a                  Article 25 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 may be
judgment on 11 August 1995 , in which it:                                    exercised at the same time as an adjustment of quotas
                                                                             pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 193/82
1 , dismisses the appeal;                                                    following a transfer of undertakings or factories,
                                                                             provided that the specific conditions governing the
                                                                             application of each of those provisions are complied
2 , orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                  with;
(') OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
                                                                       3 . Article 25 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 must be
                                                                             interpreted as meaning that Member States may reduce
                                                                             the A quota and the B quota by 10% each;


title: Case F-9/16: Action brought on 17 February 2016 — ZZ and Others v Parliament

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/40

         Action brought on 17 February 2016 — ZZ and Others v Parliament
   (Case F-9/16)
   (2016/C 145/49)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: M. Casado Garcia-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decisions refusing the four applicants the grant of education allowances in respect of the year 2014-2015 and the following years and an order that the defendant is to pay the applicants the education allowances in respect of 2015/2016, together with interest calculated as of the dates on which those sums became payable under Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the contested individual decisions dated 24 April 2015;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the decisions of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament dated 17 November and 19 November 2015;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the applicants the education allowance in respect of 2015/2016 together with interest calculated as of the dates on which those sums became payable under Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case C-509/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo (Italy) lodged on 21 November 2007 — Luigi Scarpelli v NEOS Banca SpA

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo (Italy) lodged on 21 November 2007 — Luigi Scarpelli v NEOS Banca SpA
   (Case C-509/07)
   (2008/C 37/08)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale di Bergamo
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Luigi Scarpelli

      Defendant: NEOS Banca SpA
   Question referred
   ‘Is Article 11(2) of Council Directive 102/87/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an agreement between a supplier and a grantor of credit whereunder credit is made available exclusively by that grantor of credit to customers of that supplier is a necessary condition for the consumer's right to pursue remedies against the grantor of credit — where the supplier is in breach of contract — even where that right is (a) only to termination of the credit agreement; or (b) to termination of the agreement and consequently to reimbursement of the sums paid to the grantor of credit?’

      (1)  OJ L 42, p. 48.