title: Action brought on 17 April 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-150/97)

text:
No C 181 /8              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14 . 6 . 97
Action brought on 17 April 1997 by the Commission                         ( g) the Portuguese legislation does not ensure that the
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                              data obtained by the environmental authorities and by
                                Republic                                        the Member States are taken into account, as required
                          ( Case C-150/97)                                      by Article 8 of the Directive;
                            ( 97/C 181 / 14 )
                                                                          ( h ) the Portuguese legislation does not provide for the
                                                                                neighbouring Member State to be informed, if
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                           necessary, of the decision provided for in Article 9 of
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                         the Directive;
on 17 April 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for                ( i ) the Portuguese legislation does not require the national
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                       measures to be applied to projects in respect of which
Cruz, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.                                                an application for authorization has been pending
                                                                                since June 1 990 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (') OJ No L 175 , 5 . 7. 1985 , p. 40 .
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      or administrative provisions necessary to comply fully
      with 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 ), the Portuguese
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
      third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
      Article 12 of Directive 85/337/EEC,                                 Supremo ( Sala Social ) by order of that court of 17 March
                                                                          1997 in the case of Aristoteles Juan Grajera Rodriguez v.
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                         Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria
                                                                                General de la Seguridad Social
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                 ( Case C-153/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 / 15 )
The Commision asserts that, despite the prescribed period
having expired, the Portuguese Republic has still not
adopted all the provisions to ensure full compliance of its               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
internal legal system with Directive 85/337/EEC, so that it               European Communities by an order of the Social Chamber
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third                      of the Tribunal Supremo ( Supreme Court ) of 17 March
paragraph of Aricle 189 of the EC Treaty and of Article 12                1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
( 1 ) of the Directive .                                                  23 April 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                          Aristoteles Juan Grajera Rodriguez v. Instituto Nacional
In particular, the Portuguese Republic did not fulfil its                 de la Seguridad Social ( National Social Security Institute )
obligations under the abovementioned Directive inasmuch                   and Tesoreria General de la Seguridad Social ( General
as :                                                                      Social Security Fund ), on the following questions:
( a ) the Portuguese legislation concerns only part of the                A. Must the calculation method laid down in Annex VI
      categories referred to in Annex II of the Directive;                      ( D ) ( 4 ) to Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( J ), in the
                                                                                version inserted by Regulation ( EEC ) No 1248/92 ( 2 ),
( b ) the Portuguese legislation does not take into account                     under which the Spanish theoretical pension is
      the whole of the criteria laid down in Article 2 of the                   determined in accordance with the bases of the
      Directive ;                                                               worker's contributions during the calculation period
                                                                                immediately preceding payment of his last
( c) the Portuguese legislation provides for the possibility                    contribution to the Spanish social security, with
      of exempting a complete category from assessment on                       revalorization of the resultant theoretical pension on
      the effects on the environment;                                           the same terms as those which, under Spanish national
                                                                                legislation, would have been applied to revalorization
( d ) the Portuguese legislation concerns only partially the                    of a pension becoming payable at the time of payment
      provisions of Articles 3 and 5 and those of Annex III                     of the last contribution in Spain be regarded as
      of the Directive;                                                         contrary to Articles 48 and 51 of the Treaty
                                                                                establishing the European Community, and
( e ) the Portuguese legislation concerns only partially the
      provisions of Article 6 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of the Directive;           B. In order to guarantee equal treatment for migrant
                                                                                workers in matters of social security, must the basic
( f) the Portuguese legislation did not implement Article 7                     amount of the Spanish pension be calculated by
      of the Directive regarding consultation of                                reference to what would have been the bases for the
      neighbouring Member States;                                               migrant worker's contributions if he had stayed in


title: Case C-246/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat, Austria) — Armin Häupl v Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Trade mark law — Article 10(1) of Directive 89/104/EEC — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Concept of date of the completion of the registration procedure )

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat, Austria) — Armin Häupl v Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG
   (Case C-246/05) (1)

   (Trade mark law - Article 10(1) of Directive 89/104/EEC - Absence of genuine use of a trade mark - Concept of ‘date of the completion of the registration procedure’)
   (2007/C 183/06)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberster Patent- und Markensenat
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Armin Häupl

      Defendant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Patent- und Markensenat — Interpretation of Articles 10(1) and 12(1) of Directive 89/104/EEC: First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Absence of genuine use of a mark — Reasons outside the control of the undertaking preventing it from opening supermarkets on the national territory, whereas its usual strategy is to market goods bearing that mark only in its own supermarkets — Concept of the date on which the registration procedure finishes
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The ‘date of the completion of the registration procedure’ within the meaning of Article 10(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be determined in each Member State in accordance with the procedural rules on registration in force in that State;

               2)

               Article 12(1) of Directive 89/104 must be interpreted as meaning that obstacles having a direct relationship with a trade mark which make its use impossible or unreasonable and which are independent of the will of the proprietor of that mark constitute ‘proper reasons for non-use’ of the mark. It is for the national court or tribunal to assess the facts in the main proceedings in the light of that guidance.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 16.8.2006.


title: Case C-242/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch by order of that court of 31 May 2005 in G.M. van de Coevering v Rijksbelastingdienst

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch by order of that court of 31 May 2005 in G.M. van de Coevering v Rijksbelastingdienst
   (Case C-242/05)
   (2005/C 205/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch ('s-Hertogenbosch Regional Court of Appeal) of 31 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 3 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between G.M. van de Coevering and Roermond Customs District of the Rijksbelastingdienst on the following question:
   Does Community law, in particular the freedom to provide services as set out in Articles 49 EC to 55 EC, preclude the Netherlands from charging a natural person resident in the Netherlands — who leases in another Member State, under a leasing contract with a lessor, a passenger car which is not registered in the register pursuant to the Wegenverkeerswet 1994 and on which no passenger car and motorcycle tax under Article 1(2) of the Wet BPM (1) has been paid — passenger car and motorcycle tax under Article 1(5) of the Wet BPM on commencement of use in the Netherlands by that passenger car of the highway within the meaning of the Wegenverkeerswet 1994, where the full amount of the tax is chargeable irrespective of the period of the lease and the duration of the use of the highway in the Netherlands and where that natural person has no right at all to an exemption or a refund?

      (1)  1992 Law on passenger car and motorcycle tax.


title: Case T-91/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 February 2007 — Sinara Handel v Council and Commission (Preliminary issues — Plea of inadmissibility — Action for damages — Loss of profit — Application for repayment of anti-dumping duties — No jurisdiction)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/41

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 February 2007 — Sinara Handel v Council and Commission
   (Case T-91/05) (1)

   (Preliminary issues - Plea of inadmissibility - Action for damages - Loss of profit - Application for repayment of anti-dumping duties - No jurisdiction)
   (2007/C 95/83)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Sinara Handel GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and E. Petritsi, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer); and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Khan and T. Scharf, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for compensation under Article 288 EC for the damage allegedly suffered because of the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the Republic of Croatia (OJ 1997 L 322, p. 1)
   Operative part of the order
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the applicant, Sinara Handel GmbH, to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Case T-189/06: Action brought on 18 July 2006 — Arkema France v Commission

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/39

         Action brought on 18 July 2006 — Arkema France v Commission
   (Case T-189/06)
   (2006/C 212/69)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Arkema France (Puteaux, France) (represented by: A. Winckler, lawyer, S. Sorinas, lawyer, and P. Geffriaud, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               on the basis of Article 230 EC, annul the decision adopted by the Commission of 3 May 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.620 in so far as it concerns Arkema;

               —

               in the alternative, annul or reduce, on the basis of Artice 229 EC, the amount of the fine imposed upon it by that decision;

               —

               order the Commission pay to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate, by which the Commission found that the undertakings to which the decision was addressed, which included the applicant, infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by participating in a complex of agreements and concerted practices consisting of the exchange of information between competitors and agreements on prices and production capacities and also of supervision of the implementation of those agreements in the hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate sector. In the alternative, it seeks the annulment or reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on it by that decision.
   In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.
   By its first plea, the applicant submits that, by holding Elf Aquitaine and Total liable for the infringement committed by Arkema on the basis of a mere presumption linked to the fact that almost all its capital was held by those companies at the material time, the Commission made errors of law and fact in the application of the rules relating to holding a parent company liable for practices implemented by a subsidiary and it breached the principle of non-discrimination. The applicant claims to have refuted that presumption of control during the investigation. In addition, it argues that the Commission breached its duty to state reasons under Article 253 EC and also the principle of good administration by not responding to all the arguments expanded by the applicant in its response to the statement of objections.
   By its second plea, the applicant claims that the Commission made an error of law in that it increased by 200 % the ‘starting amount’ for Arkema's fine by way of a deterrent by taking as a basis the turnover of Total and Elf Aquitaine, the parent companies at the material time, since one or both of those companies could not, according to the applicant, be held liable for the alleged breach. As a subsidiary argument in the context of that plea, the applicant submits that, supposing that the parent companies could be held liable for the breach, the Commission breached the principles of proportionality and equal treatment by applying a multiplying factor of 3 (or an increase by 200 %) to the ‘starting amount’ of the fine imposed on Arkema by way of a deterrent.
   Thirdly, the applicant submits that it is in breach of law that the decision increased the ‘basic amount’ of Arkema's fine by 50 % on the grounds of repeated infringement. It argues that the application of the notion of repeated infringement is manifestly excessive in the present case and contrary to the principle of legal certainty as regards infringements found by the Commission on the basis of facts far removed from the present time. Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the Commission breached the principle of ‘non bis in idem’ and the principle of proportionality, since the existence of earlier decisions against it had already been taken into account on several occasions by the Commission in other recent decisions in which it imposed on Arkema an increase of the fine by 50 % by virtue of repeated infringement. The applicant claims that it is being penalised again for the same acts.
   Finally, it submits that the decision is well founded in neither law nor fact, in so far as it did not grant the applicant a reduction greater than 30 % of the amount of the fine by virtue of its cooperation during the proceedings. The applicant contends that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and also an error of law in that it did not apply Title B of the Leniency Notice (1) to grant it a reduction of the fine of 50 %.

      (1)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3)


title: Case C-618/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 10 December 2012 — Reggiani SpA Illuminazione v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 10 December 2012 — Reggiani SpA Illuminazione v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances
   (Case C-618/12)
   2013/C 101/19
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative d’appel de Paris

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Reggiani SpA Illuminazione

      Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

      Question referred

   Does Article 2 of [the] Directive [79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979] (1) infringe freedom of establishment in that it limits entitlement to a refund to just moveable property?

      (1)  Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11).


title: Case C-674/15 P: Appeal brought on 15 December 2015 by The Tea Board against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 2 October 2015 in Case T-625/13: The Tea Board v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/13

         Appeal brought on 15 December 2015 by The Tea Board against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 2 October 2015 in Case T-625/13: The Tea Board v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-674/15 P)
   (2016/C 106/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: The Tea Board (represented by: M.C. Maier, A. Nordemann, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Delta Lingerie

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2015 in Case T-625/13 as far as the General Court dismissed the action with respect to the following services covered by the mark applied for in Classes 35 and 38:

                  Business consultancy with regard to the creation and operation of retail outlets and central purchasing agencies for retailing and advertising purposes; Sales promotion (for others), advertising, business management, business administration, on-line advertising on a computer network, distribution of advertising material (leaflets, flyers, free newspapers, samples), arranging newspaper subscriptions for others; Business information or enquiries; organization of events and exhibitions for commercial or advertising purposes, advertising management, rental of advertising space, radio and television advertising, advertising sponsorship. (Class 35)

                  Telecommunications, computer-aided transmission of messages and images, interactive television broadcasting services relating to the presentation of products, communications by computer terminals, communications (transmissions) on the open and closed world wide web. (Class 38)

               —

               if necessary, remit the case back to the General Court,

               —

               order the Defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Action seeks the partial annulment of the judgment of the General Court in Case T-625/13 of 2 October 2015 in so far as the General Court dismissed the action with respect to services covered by the contested mark in Classes 35 and 38.

               2.

               The Action is based on two pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR (1) and infringement of Article 8(5) CTMR.

               3.

               The Applicant is of the opinion that the essential function of a Community collective mark according to Article 66(2) CTMR, consisting of an indication which serves to designate the geographical origin of the goods covered, is not to serve as an indication of commercial origin but only to guarantee the collective origin of the goods or services offered and sold under the mark, i.e. that the products come from an undertaking which is located in the geographical region adopted as a Community collective mark and which is entitled to use the Community collective mark.

               4.

               Consequently, in the Applicant's view it must be concluded that, in the framework of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR, the geographical origin must be taken into account as a relevant factor- either when assessing the similarity of the goods and/or services at issue and/or when carrying out a global assessment of likelihood of confusion.

               5.

               Therefore, when comparing goods and/or services of an earlier Community collective mark according to Article 66(2) CTMR, consisting of geographical indication, with those of a Community individual mark, it is not, in the Applicant's opinion, decisive whether the goods and services in question are similar in regard to their nature, purpose, end users and/or distribution channels. Rather, it must be questioned whether the goods and/or services in question may have the same geographical origin.

               6.

               The Applicant's interpretation of Article 66(2) CTMR results from

                           1)

                           the inner logic of Regulation No. 207/2009, in particular the fact that

                                       i.

                                       Article 66(2) CTMR constitutes and exception within Regulation No. 207/2009 as, according to Article 7(1)(c) CTMR, trademarks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the geographical origin of the goods or of rendering of the service shall not be registered,

                                       ii.

                                       according to Article 67(2) CTMR, the regulations governing use of a Community collective trade mark consisting of geographical indication must authorise any person whose goods or services originate in the geographical area concerned to become a member of the association which is the proprietor of the mark, and consequently, a Community collective mark consisting of geographical indication is never capable of distinguishing goods or services of the members of the association which is the proprietor of the mark from those of other undertakings.

                           2)

                           an interpretation of that provision in the light of Regulation No. 1151/2012 (2) and in the light of the TRIPs-Agreement, according to which geographical indications should enjoy a high level of protection, and according to which presentations of a good that indicates or suggests that the good in question originates in a geographical area other than the true place of origin, in a manner which misleads the public as to the geographical origin of the good, should be prohibited.

               7.

               The Applicant is of the opinion that the qualities established by the General Court in connection with DARJEELING can also be transferred to services such as business consultancy or telecommunication services, and are able to strengthen the power of attraction of the contested mark in that regard. Further, the Applicant points out that the General Court did not provide any substantiated grounds in its judgment, as to why the qualities associated with the mark DARJEELING could not be transferred to services in Class 35 and 38, which, in itself is an error in law.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

      OJ L 78, p. 1

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

      OJ L 343, p. 1


title: Case T-257/12: Action brought on 11 June 2012 — Siegenia-Aubi and Noraa v Commission

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/32

         Action brought on 11 June 2012 — Siegenia-Aubi and Noraa v Commission
   (Case T-257/12)
   2012/C 227/54
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Siegenia-Aubi KG (Wilnsdorf, Germany) and Noraa GmbH (Wilnsdorf, Germany) (represented by: T. Caspary and J. van Kann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul in part Commission Decision C(2012) 2069 final of 28 March 2012 in Case COMP/39452 — Mountings for windows and window-doors in so far as it concerns the applicants;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce, as appropriate, the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants in the contested decision, pursuant to Article 261 TFEU;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First, in its findings the defendant breached the principles of the burden of proof (Article 2 of Regulation No 1/2003), the standard of proof and the obligation to state the reasons for its decision. In particular, the defendant failed to demonstrate sufficiently the existence of any alleged ‘signal effects’ on all mounting technologies and materials throughout the entire European Economic Area (EEA) of German prices for ‘turn-and-tilt’ systems, and thereby unlawfully reduced the burden of proof on the defendant.

               2.

               Second, the defendant erred in law in assuming that the alleged collusion affected the whole of the EEA, or failed to adduce sufficient evidence in that respect.

               3.

               Third, the defendant erred in law in assuming that the alleged infringement related to all mounting technologies and materials, and failed to adduce sufficient evidence in that respect.

               4.

               Fourth, the defendant erred in law in assuming that collusion on prices occurred in 2002, and failed to adduce sufficient evidence in that respect. As a result the Guidelines on fines were also applied incorrectly in law, in so far as it was erroneously assumed that the infringement lasted from 1999 until 2007. Furthermore the defendant infringed Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003, because events that occurred before 2002 are time-barred.

               5.

               Fifth, the defendant erred in law in attributing to the applicants the conduct of a company in which only a minority shareholding was held, thereby infringing the rules on the attribution of the actions of subsidiaries to the parent company, as well as the obligation to state reasons.

               6.

               Sixth, in making an adjustment of the fine, the defendant breached the principles of equal treatment, proportionality, sound administration, and of the obligation to state reasons. Furthermore, the defendant acted contrary to the wording, logic and purpose of the Guidelines on fines.

               7.

               Seventh, in determining the gravity of the infringement, the defendant breached the principles of proportionality and sound administration and infringed points 20, 23, and 25 of the Guidelines on fines, as well as the obligation to state reasons.

               8.

               Eighth, in determining mitigating circumstances, the defendant breached the principles of equal treatment, point 29 of the Guidelines on fines and the obligation to state reasons. In particular the defendant failed to take into account the fact of the applicants’ non-intentional conduct and of their active cooperation.


title: Case C-238/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Luxembourg) lodged on 12 May 2010 — Volker Schneider v Landsbanki Luxembourg SA (in liquidation)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Luxembourg) lodged on 12 May 2010 — Volker Schneider v Landsbanki Luxembourg SA (in liquidation)
   (Case C-238/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/31
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Volker Schneider

      Defendant: Landsbanki Luxembourg SA (in liquidation)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) to be interpreted as applying to a termination of activities as a result of a declaration that the employer is insolvent or a judicial decision ordering the dissolution and winding-up, on grounds of insolvency, of the credit institution which is the employer on the basis of Article 61(l)(a) and (b) of the amended Law of 5 April 1993 relating to the financial sector, in respect of which termination the national legislation provides for the termination of employment contracts with immediate effect?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Directive 98/59/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the administrator or liquidator is to be deemed to be in the same position as an employer who is contemplating collective redundancies and who is capable of carrying out, to that end, the acts referred to in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 98/53/EC and of effecting such redundancies (judgment in Case C-323/08, paragraphs 39, 40 and 41)? (2)

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.

      (2)  Judgment of 10 December 2009 in Case C-323/08 Rodríguez Mayor and Others


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 24 September 1996 in Case T-185/95: Giovanni Sergio v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Transfer of pension rights - General provisions for giving effect to the Staff Regulations - Time limit for submitting a request)

text:
26 . 10 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 318/9
3.    orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 24 September 1996
(') OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                       in Case T-185/95 : Giovanni Sergio v. Commission of the
( 2 ) OJ No L 333 , 1993 , p . 67 .
                                                                                European Communities ( 1 )
                                                                       (Officials — Transfer of pension rights — General
                                                                       provisions forgiving effect to the StaffRegulations — Time
                                                                                limit for submitting a request)
                                                                                96/C 318/ 19 )
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 24 September 1996                                             (Language of the case: French)
in    Case   T-57/91 :    National   Association     of Licensed
Opencast Operators v. Commission of the European
                         Communities ( 1 )                             In Case T-185/95 : Giovanni Sergio, an official of the
 (ECSC Treaty — Competition — National undertaking                     Commission of the European Communities, represented by
 owning coal reserves and enjoying a statutory monopoly on             Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for
 the granting of extraction licences — Consideration on the            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21
part of the licensee represented by payment of a royalty or            rue Nassau, v. Commission of the European Communities
supply of the coal to the licensor — Rate ofroyalties levied           ( Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —
— Price of coal supplied — Whether compatible with the                 application for annulment of the decision of the
                           ECSC Treaty)                                Commission rejecting the request for transfer of the
                                                                       applicant's pension rights — the Court of First Instance
                           ( 96/C 318/ 18 )
                                                                       ( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët, President, and
                                                                       B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
                (Language of the case: English)                        given a judgment on 24 September 1996 , in which it:
In Case T-57/91 : The National Association of Licensed
 Opencast Operators, having its registered office in                    1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it seeks
Newcastle upon Tyne ( United Kingdom ), represented by                      the issue of directions to the Commission;
Nicholas Green, Barrister, and David James Malcolm
Wilson, Solicitor, with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Gillen, 13 rue                   2 . dismisses the remainder of the action as unfounded;
Aldringen, against the Commission of the European
 Communities ( Agents : Julian Currall, Stephen Kon and                3 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
 Leonard Hawkes ), supported by the British Coal
 Corporation, having its registered office in London,
 represented by David Vaughan QC and David Lloyd Jones,                (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
 Barrister, together with Peter J. Sigler and Rebekah M.
 Gershuny, Solicitors, with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 8 rue Zithe —
 application for the annulment in part of Commission
 decision SG(91 ) D/9467 of 23 May 1991 rejecting the
 applicant's complaint concerning the market in coal for
 electricity generation — the Court of First Instance ( Third
 Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of: C. P.
 Briët, President, K. Lenaerts, B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh and A.          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the                              of 26 September 1996
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 September 1996 , in             in Case T-192/94: Henry Maurissen v. Court of Auditors of
 which it :                                                                            the European Communities (*)
                                                                        (Action for annulment — Staff report — Admissibility —
 1 . declares inadmissible the second, seventh and ninth                 Statement of reasons — Review by the Court — Limits)
       heads of claim;                                                                           ( 96/C 318 /20
 2 . dismisses the remainder of the applicant 's claims;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 3 . Orders the applicant to pay all the costs of the
       proceedings, including those of the intervener British
       Coal.                                                            In Case T-192/94 : Henry Maurissen, a former official at the
                                                                        Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                        Schuttrange ( Luxembourg ), represented by Jean-Noel
 (') OJ No C 243 , 18 . 9 . 1991 .                                      Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 rue
                                                                        Glesener, v. Court of Auditors of the European


title: Case C-265/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Roma — Italy) — Caffaro Srl v Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale RM/C (Commercial transactions — Directive 2000/35/EC — Combating of late payment — Procedures for recovery of unchallenged claims)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Roma — Italy) — Caffaro Srl v Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale RM/C
   (Case C-265/07) (1)

   (Commercial transactions - Directive 2000/35/EC - Combating of late payment - Procedures for recovery of unchallenged claims)
   (2008/C 285/14)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale civile di Roma
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Caffaro Srl

      Defendant: Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale RM/C

      In the presence of: Banca di Roma SpA
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale civile di Roma — Interpretation of Article 5 of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35) — Recovery procedures for uncontested debts — National legislation laying down that a period of 120 days from the date of notification of the recovery order must elapse before recovery of the debt may be enforced
   Operative part of the judgment
   Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions is to be interpreted as not precluding a national provision such as Article 14 of Decree-Law No 669/1996 of 31 December 1996, converted into a law, after amendment, by Law No 30 of 28 February 1997, as amended by Article 147 of Law No 388 of 23 December 2000, pursuant to which a creditor in possession of an enforceable title in respect of an unchallenged claim against a public authority as remuneration for a commercial transaction cannot proceed to forced execution against the public authority before a period of 120 days has elapsed since service of the enforceable title on the authority.

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.


title: Joined Cases C-356/11 and C-357/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 December 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — O, S v Maahanmuuttovirasto (C-356/11), and Maahanmuuttovirasto v L (C-357/11) (Citizenship of the Union — Article 20 TFEU — Directive 2003/86/EC — Right to family reunification — Union citizens who are minor children living with their mothers, who are third country nationals, in the territory of the Member State of which the children are nationals — Permanent right of residence in that Member State of the mothers who have been granted sole custody of the Union citizens — Change in composition of the families following the mothers’ remarriage to third country nationals and the birth of children of those marriages who are also third country nationals — Applications for family reunification in the Member State of origin of the Union citizens — Refusal of the right of residence to the new spouses on the ground of lack of sufficient resources — Right to respect for family life — Taking into consideration of the children’s best interests)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 December 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — O, S v Maahanmuuttovirasto (C-356/11), and Maahanmuuttovirasto v L (C-357/11)
   (Joined Cases C-356/11 and C-357/11) (1)

   (Citizenship of the Union - Article 20 TFEU - Directive 2003/86/EC - Right to family reunification - Union citizens who are minor children living with their mothers, who are third country nationals, in the territory of the Member State of which the children are nationals - Permanent right of residence in that Member State of the mothers who have been granted sole custody of the Union citizens - Change in composition of the families following the mothers’ remarriage to third country nationals and the birth of children of those marriages who are also third country nationals - Applications for family reunification in the Member State of origin of the Union citizens - Refusal of the right of residence to the new spouses on the ground of lack of sufficient resources - Right to respect for family life - Taking into consideration of the children’s best interests)
   2013/C 26/19
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: O, S (C-356/11), Maahanmuuttovirasto (C-357/11)

      Defendants: Maahanmuuttovirasto (C-356/11), L (C-357/11)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Article 20 TFEU — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Right to family reunification — Residence permit in a Member State for a third-country national, resident without a permanent residence permit in the Member State, in a situation in which that person’s spouse, a third-country national, resides lawfully in that Member State and has a child with the nationality of that Member State, and the person is not the child’s parent and does not have parental responsibility for the child — Situation in which the spouses also have a child together, of third-country nationality, who resides with them and the spouse’s child in the Member State concerned

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from refusing to grant a third country national a residence permit on the basis of family reunification where that national seeks to reside with his spouse, who is also a third country national and resides lawfully in that Member State and is the mother of a child from a previous marriage who is a Union citizen, and with the child of their own marriage, who is also a third country national, provided that such a refusal does not entail, for the Union citizen concerned, the denial of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by the status of citizen of the Union, that being for the referring court to ascertain.
   Applications for residence permits on the basis of family reunification such as those at issue in the main proceedings are covered by Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification. Article 7(1)(c) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that, while Member States have the faculty of requiring proof that the sponsor has stable and regular resources which are sufficient to maintain himself and the members of his family, that faculty must be exercised in the light of Articles 7 and 24(2) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which require the Member States to examine applications for family reunification in the interests of the children concerned and also with a view to promoting family life, and avoiding any undermining of the objective and the effectiveness of that directive. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether the decisions refusing residence permits at issue in the main proceedings were taken in compliance with those requirements.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case T-382/09: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Ergo Versicherungsgruppe v OHIM — DeguDent (ERGO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ERGO — Prior Community and national word marks CERGO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Duty to rule on the entirety of the action — Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Ergo Versicherungsgruppe v OHIM — DeguDent (ERGO)
   (Case T-382/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ERGO - Prior Community and national word marks CERGO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Duty to rule on the entirety of the action - Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2011/C 311/76
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A.W. Renck, T. Dolde and J. Pause, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: DeguDent GmbH (Hanau, Germany) (represented by: initially W. Blau, then W. Blau, D. Kaya and C. Kusulis, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2009 (Case R 44/2008-4) concerning opposition proceedings between DeguDent GmbH and Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG

      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 23 July 2009 (Case R 44/2008-4) in so far as the Board of Appeal omitted to rule on the action brought before it as regards the goods in Class 5

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG, DeguDent Gmbh and OHIM to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.


title: Case T-135/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 November 2006 — Campoli v Commission (Officials — Pensions — Weighting calculated by reference to the average cost of living in the country of residence — Transitional arrangements set up by the new Staff Regulations of Officials from 1 May 2004 — Act adversely affecting an official — Objection of illegality — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Equal treatment)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/40

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 November 2006 — Campoli v Commission
   (Case T-135/05) (1)

   (Officials - Pensions - Weighting calculated by reference to the average cost of living in the country of residence - Transitional arrangements set up by the new Staff Regulations of Officials from 1 May 2004 - Act adversely affecting an official - Objection of illegality - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Equal treatment)
   (2006/C 331/87)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Franco Campoli (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, Agents)
   Re:
   In essence, annulment of the applicant's pension statements of May to July 2004 in so far as they apply for the first time a weighting calculated illegally by reference to the average cost of living in the applicant's country of residence, and no longer in relation to the cost of living in the capital of that country.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.


title: Case T-105/17: Action brought on 17 February 2017 — HSBC Holdings and Others v Commission

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/46

         Action brought on 17 February 2017 — HSBC Holdings and Others v Commission
   (Case T-105/17)
   (2017/C 112/65)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: HSBC Holdings plc (London, United Kingdom), HSBC Bank plc (London), HSBC France (Paris, France) (represented by: K. Bacon, QC, D. Bailey, Barrister, M. Simpson, Solicitor, Y. Anselin and C. Angeli, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1 of the European Commission decision of 7 December 2016, notified on 9 December 2016, in Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives — C(2016) 8530 final (the ‘Contested Decision’);

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 1(b) of the Contested Decision;

               —

               in the further alternative, partially annul Article 1(b) of the Contested Decision in so far as it holds that the applicants participated in a single and continuous infringement;

               —

               annul Article 2(b) of the Contested Decision;

               —

               in the alternative, substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicants under Article 2(b) of the Contested Decision to such amount as the Court may deem appropriate, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs or, in the alternative, an appropriate proportion of the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant wrongly concluded that the applicants engaged in conduct that has as its object the restriction and/or distortion of competition within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law and fact and/or gave insufficient reasons for finding that the conduct subject to the Contested Decision pursued a single economic aim of distorting competition. Accordingly, the defendant’s finding of a single and continuous infringement (‘SCI’) is fundamentally flawed.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s finding that the applicants intentionally contributed to the SCI described in the Contested Decision is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment and/or lack of reasoning.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s finding that the applicants were or ought to have been aware of the conduct of the other alleged participants in the SCI is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment and/or a lack of reasoning.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed essential procedural requirements in the process leading to the adoption of the Contested Decision. Specifically, the defendant infringed the applicants’ rights of defence, the principle of the presumption of innocence and the principle of good administration by adopting a staggered administrative procedure.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the defendant wrongly calculated the fine imposed on the applicants and as such the fine is unjustified and disproportionate.


title: Action brought on 18 June 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-227/97)

text:
26 . 7 . 97               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 228/ 13
        awarded under the procedure therein mentioned or                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondissements
        are the provisions of the Directive relevant to the                 rechtbank, Maastricht, by judgment of that court of
        services mentioned in Annex I ( A ) capable of                      13 June 1997 in the criminal proceedings against Johannes
        fulfilling the preconditions laid down in the                                               Martinus Lemmens
        abovementioned case ?                                                                         ( Case C-226/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/27)
6.      Is there under Article 5 or other provisions of the
        EEC Treaty, or under Directive 92/50/EEC, an                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        obligation on the State to interfere in existing legal              European Communities by judgment of the Arrondisse
        situations concluded for an indefinite period or for                mentsrechtbank ( District Court), Maastricht, of 13 June
        several years but which were not entered into in                    1997, which was received at the Court Registry on 18 June
        accordance with the abovementioned Directive .                      1997, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
                                                                            against Johannes Martinus Lemmens on the following
(') OJ No L 209 , 24 . 7. 1992, p . 1 .                                     questions :
( 2 ) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 33 .
(■') Case 41 /74 [ 1974 ] ECR 1337.                                         1 . Can a defendant in criminal proceedings instituted for
                                                                                an offence contrary to Article 8 (2 ) ( a ) of the Wegen
                                                                                verkeerswet ( Road Traffic Law) 1994 successfully rely
                                                                                on the application of the Regeling Ademanalyse
                                                                                ( Regulation on breath analysis ) ( Ned.Stcrt 1987, 187),
                                                                                as amended, laying down further rules concerning the
                                                                                requirements for breath-analysis apparatus and the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs                         tests which such apparatus must undergo, being set
gerichtshof, by order of that court of 26 May 1997, in the                       aside
               case of Erich Ciola v. Land Vorarlberg
                           ( Case C-224/97 )                                     — where, for the purposes of the investigation
                                                                                referred to in Article 8 ( 2 ) ( a ) of the Wegenverkeer
                             ( 97/C 228/26 )                                          swet 1994, that Regulation is based, pursuant to
                                                                                Article 65 of the Invoeringswet Wegenverkeerswet
                                                                                ( Law implementing the Road Traffic Law) 1994,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                on Article 163 of the Wegenverkeerswet viewed in
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsge                                   conjunction with Article 5 of the Besluit Alcoho
richtshof (Administrative Court of Appeal ) of 26 May                                 londerzoeken ( Decree on the conduct of tests to
 1997, received at the Court Registry on 16 June 1997, for                            determine alcohol level ) ( Stb . 1987, 432 ), as
a preliminary ruling in the case of Erich Ciola v. Land Vor                          amended,
arlberg on the following questions :                                             — in view of the failure to notify the Regulation to
                                                                                the European Commission, as required by Article 8
                                                                                of Directive 83/189/EEC O ?
 1 . Are the provisions concerning the freedom to provide
       services to be interpreted as precluding a Member
                                                                             2 . Should a court in criminal proceedings of the kind
       State from prohibiting the operator of a yachting
       harbour, on pain of criminal prosecution, from hiring
                                                                                referred to above disapply that Regulation of its own
                                                                                motion on account of the failure to notify it as
       out more than a specific quota of moorings to boat
       owners who are resident in another Member State ?                         required ?
                                                                             (') OJ No L 109 , 26 . 4 . 1983 , p . 8 .
 2 . Does Community law, in particular the provisions
       concerning the freedom to provide services in
       conjunction with Article 5 of the EC Treaty and
       Article 2 of the Act concerning the conditions of
       accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of                 Action brought on 18 June 1997 by the Commission
       Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the                             of the European Communities against the Portuguese
       adjustments to the Treaties on which the European                                                       Republic
       Union is founded ( OJ No C 241 , 29 . 8 . 1994, p. 21 ;
       OJ No L 1 , 1 . 1 . 1995, p. 1 ), give the provider of the                                       ( Case C-227/97)
       services referred to in question 1 above, who is                                                    ( 97/C 228/28 )
       resident in Austria, the right to assert that the
       prohibition issued in the terms set out in question 1 in
       an administrative decision ( Bescheid) adopted in 1990                An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
       in regard to a specific person should not be applied in               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
       decisions    of the      Austrian      courts and    authorities      on 18 June 1997 by the Commission of the European
       adopted after 1 January 1995 ?                                        Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
                                                                             of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                             service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                             Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 228/14           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 26 . 7. 97
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                           under those provisions,
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     period the laws, regulations or administrative
     provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive            — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
     91 /676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the
     protection of waters against pollution caused by                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     nitrates from agricultural sources ('), and, in
     particular, by not having designated vulnerable zones
     as provided for in Article 3 ( 2 ) thereof, or establishing      The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
     or submitting a code or codes of good agricultural               paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty requires
     practice as provided for in Article 4 thereof, the               Member States to adopt the measures necessary to
     Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations         transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
     under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC               law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing
     Treaty and Article 3 ( 2 ), Article 4 and Article 12 of          so. That period expired on 19 December 1993 without
     Directive 91 /676/EEC,                                           Portugal having brought into force the necessary
                                                                      provisions.
— declare, in the alternative, that, by failing forthwith
     to inform the Commission of such measures, the                   (') OJ No L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        (First Chamber)                                                        of 12 June 1997
                        of 12 June 1997                               in Case T-104/96: Ludwig Kramer v. Commission of the
in Case T-237/95 : Fernando Carbajo Ferrero v. European                                 European Communities ( J )
                         Parliament Í 1 )                             (Officials — Determination of the level of a post —
                                                                      Manifest error of assessment — Error of law — Misuse of
(Officials — Internal competition — Appointment to a
                   post as Head of Division)                                  powers — Article 7 of the Staff Regulations)
                         ( 97/C 228/29 )                                                         ( 97/C 228/30 )
                (Language of the case: French)                                       (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-237/95 : Fernando Carbajo Ferrero, an official              In Case T-104/96 : Ludwig Kramer, an official of the
of the European Parliament, residing in Madrid,                       Commission of the European Communities, residing
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi ,                  in Tervuren ( Belgium ), represented by Georges
both of the Brussels bar, with an address for service in              Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Fiduciaire Myson Sari ,                 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
30 Rue de Cessange, against the European Parliament                   Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, against Commission of the
( Agents: Norbert Lorenz and Alex Bonn) — application                 European Communities (Agents: Julian Currall and Denis
for the annulment of, first, the decision of the European             Waelbroeck ) — application for annulment of the Notice of
Parliament to appoint Mr X to the post of Head of                     Vacancy for the post of Head of Unit XI.B. 3 , classified at
Division of the European Parliament's office in Madrid                Grade A 5/A 4 ( COM/111/95 ), and consequently
following Internal Competition No A/88 and, secondly, its             annulment of the appointment of Mr K. to that post —
decision not to appoint the applicant to that post — the              the Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed
Court of First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of A.              of: K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke,
Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos,                    Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the                   given a judgment on 12 June 1997, the operative part of
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 June 1997 in which              which is as follows :
it :
                                                                      1 . The application is dismissed.
1 . dismisses the application;
2 . orders each party to bear its own costs.                          2 . The parties shall bear their own costs.
(') OJ No C 46, 17. 2 . 1996 .                                        H OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .


title: Joined Cases C-364/09 P and 365/09 P: Order of the President of the Court of 10 February 2010 — Mineralbrunnen Rhöne-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Schwarzbräu GmbH

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 10 February 2010 — Mineralbrunnen Rhöne-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Schwarzbräu GmbH
   (Joined Cases C-364/09 P and 365/09 P) (1)

   2010/C 134/46

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case C-545/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt (Oder) — Germany) — Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle eG v Landrat des Landkreises Oder-Spree (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Article 7(1) and (2) — Modulation of direct payments granted to farmers — Further reduction in the amount of direct payments — Validity — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt (Oder) — Germany) — Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle eG v Landrat des Landkreises Oder-Spree
   (Case C-545/11) (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Article 7(1) and (2) - Modulation of direct payments granted to farmers - Further reduction in the amount of direct payments - Validity - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of non-discrimination)
   2013/C 141/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt (Oder)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle eG

      Defendant: Landrat des Landkreises Oder-Spree

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt (Oder) — Validity of Article 7(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006 and (EC) No 378/2007, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16) — Greater reduction of the amount of direct payments for the years 2009 to 2012 than that provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Principle of legitimate expectations

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Consideration of the first question has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 in the light of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

               2.

               Consideration of the second question has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 73/2009 in the light of the principle of non-discrimination.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case F-54/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 June 2013 — Carosi v Commission

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/86

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 June 2013 — Carosi v Commission
   (Case F-54/12) (1)

   2013/C 225/200
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012, p. 28.


title: Action brought on 26 July 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-263/96)

text:
No C 269/20           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        14 . 9 . 96
    solely on fulfilment of the conditions applying with                  administrative provisions of the Member States relating
    regard to German nationals and not on fulfilment of the               to construction projects ( 1 ), the Kingdom of Belgium has
    further conditions applying to aliens which are laid                  failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
    down in the first sentence of paragraph 1 ( 3 ) of the
    Bundeskindergeldgesetz ('BKGG') in the version thereof            2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
    published in the Official Notice of 31 January 1994
    ( BGB1 . I, p. 168 )?                                             The time limit for transposition expired on 27 June
                                                                      1991 .
    Or, to phrase that question in more general terms :
                                                                      (>) OJ No L 40 , 11 . 2 . 1989 , p . 12 .
    Is a Member State prohibited from refusing a Turkish
    national who comes within the personal scope of
    Article 2 of Decision No 3/80 family benefits provided
    for under its law on the ground that that person does
    not possess an Aufenthaltsberecbtigung or an                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by
    Aufenthaltserlaubnis ?                                            order of that court of 24 July 1996 , in the case of Imperial
                                                                      Chemical Industries pic against Colmer ( Her Majesty's
2 . Is a Turkish national residing in the territory of a                                       Inspector of Taxes )
    Member State a worker within the meaning of Article 2                                        ( Case C-264/96 )
    in conjunction with Article 1 ( b ) of Decision No 3/80                                        ( 96/C 269/42 )
    during periods when, pursuant to the law of that State,
    compulsory contributions to the social security pension           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    scheme are deemed, in favour of that person , to have             European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
    been paid in respect of time spent in bringing up a               of 24 July 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
    child ?
                                                                      29 July 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Imperial
                                                                      Chemical Industries pic against Colmer ( Her Majesty 's
3 . Is a Turkish national residing in the territory of a              Inspector of Taxes ), on the following questions :
    Member State who, in addition to following a course of
    studies, is employed there on the basis of a                      1.  In a situation where :
    corresponding Aufenthaltserlaubnis for up to 16 hours
    per week as an occasional worker to be regarded on that                   ( i ) a company ( company A ) is resident in a Member
    ground alone as a worker within the meaning of                                  State of the European Union;
    Article 2 in conjunction with Article 1 ( b ) of Decision
    No 3/80, or in any event because that person is insured                 ( ii ) company A is part of a consortium with another
    under a statutory accident insurance scheme against                             company ( company B ) also resident in that
    accidents at work ?                                                             Member State;
                                                                          ( iii ) companies A and B jointly own a holding company
                                                                                ( company C ) also resident in the Member State ;
                                                                          ( iv ) company C has a number of trading subsidiaries ,
                                                                                which are resident either in that Member State,
                                                                                other Member States of the European Union or
Action brought on 26 July 1996 by the Commission of the                             elsewhere in the world ; and
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                        ( Case C-263 /96                                    ( v ) company A is precluded from being entitled to
                          ( 96/C 269/41 )                                           claim against its corporation tax liability relief in
                                                                                respect of trading losses incurred by a trading
                                                                                subsidiary ( also resident in that Member State ) of
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                                company C because the national legislation ,
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                          construed as a matter of national law, required
26 July 1996 by the Commission of the European                                      that the business of company C should consist
Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal                                 wholly or mainly in the holding of shares in
Adviser in the Commission, acting as Agent, with an address                         subsidiaries which are resident in that Member
for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la                           State .
Cruz, of the Legal Service of the Commission of the
European Communities, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                      Does the requirement identified at ( v ) constitute a restriction
                                                                      on the freedom of establishment under Article 52 of the EC
                                                                      Treaty ? If so, is such treatment nevertheless justified under
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          Community law ?
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and       2 . If the requirement under ( v ) is an unjustified restriction
    administrative measures necessary in order to comply                  under Community law, does Article 5 of the EC Treaty
    with Council Directive 89/ 106/EEC of 21 December                     require a national court to interpret the relevant
    1988 on the approximation of laws , regulations and                   national legislation, so far as is possible, so as to comply


title: Case C-195/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public supply contract for catering equipment — Article 28 EC — Quantitative restrictions on imports — Measures having equivalent effect — Principle of non-discrimination — Obligation of transparency)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-195/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public supply contract for catering equipment - Article 28 EC - Quantitative restrictions on imports - Measures having equivalent effect - Principle of non-discrimination - Obligation of transparency)
   (2007/C 96/05)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Huttunen and K. Wiedner, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Molde, Agent), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: A. Tiemann and M. Lumma, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H. G. Sevenster and C.M. Wissels and by P. van Ginneken, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 28 EC — Purchase by a public undertaking of institutional kitchen equipment — Obligation of transparency
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 179, 10.7.2004.


title: Case T-30/16: Action brought on 26 January 2016 — M.I. Industries v OHIM — Natural Instinct (Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/40

         Action brought on 26 January 2016 — M.I. Industries v OHIM — Natural Instinct (Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended)
   (Case T-30/16)
   (2016/C 106/47)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: M.I. Industries, Inc. (Lincoln, United States) (represented by: T. Elias, Barrister, B. Cookson, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Natural Instinct Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended’ — Application for registration No 11 438 074

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2015 in Case R 2944/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               the applicant’s opposition No B 002 181 272 be upheld and NIL’s application No 11 438 074 be refused; alternatively, declare that the applicant has proved use its CTMs No 5 208 418 and No 5 208 201 for the purposes of the opposition No B 002 181 272, and remit the matter to the Fifth Board of Appeal for a determination of the issues arising in respect of each of those marks under Article 8(1)(b) CTMR; in the further alternative, remit the matter back to the Fifth Board of Appeal in its entirety;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 42(2) Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 October 2004 in Case C-550/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directives 2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and 2001/14/EC — Community's railways — Development — Licensing of railway undertakings — Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/24

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 7 October 2004
   in Case C-550/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directives 2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and 2001/14/EC - Community's railways - Development - Licensing of railway undertakings - Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2004/C 300/50)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-550/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Wils and G. Zavvos) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: N. Dafniou) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 23 December 2003 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, acting as the President of the Sixth Chamber, S. von Bahr and U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways, Directive 2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings, and Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives.

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59 of 3.2.2004.


title: Case T-653/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Mulvad v Parliament

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/66

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Mulvad v Parliament
   (Case T-653/15)
   (2016/C 048/74)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nils Mulvad (Risskov, Denmark) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)8732 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: Case T-472/14: Action brought on 25 June 2014  — Joyería Tous v Commission

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/47

         Action brought on 25 June 2014 — Joyería Tous v Commission
   (Case T-472/14)
   2014/C 261/74
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Joyería Tous, SA (Lleida, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.